A police mix-up which saw a man wrongly arraigned for alleged involvement in a Birkirkara hold-up was compounded by a second mix-up, when the government asked the wrong Police Board to investigate one of the police inspectors involved.
The case goes back to August 4, 2013 when a hold-up took place at a convenience shop in Birkirkara. One of the investigating officers was Inspector Elton Taliana.
On August 7, the inspector was informed by a superintendent that the CID had arraigned a man – Darryl Luke Borg – in connection with the case. Mr Borg had pleaded not guilty but was held in custody.
On the following day, a police informant told Inspector Taliana about the person who had really carried out the hold-up - someone who was not Darryl Luke Borg.
Inspector Taliana arraigned the second man – Roderick Grech – on August 9. Mr Grech pleaded guilty and the court therefore immediately released Darryl Luke Borg.
READ: Why is inspector Taliana being blamed?
On the same day, then-Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia asked the Police Board to investigate what had happened.
In its concluding report, the board chastised Inspector Taliana for having, it said, kept mum all along.
“The board is of the view that these shortcomings were due to the fact that Inspector Taliana, instead of cooperating with other police officers – who he knew had investigated and charged another person in court – chose to forge ahead without communicating with any colleague or superior who had been in touch with him on the case.”
Disciplinary action was then instituted against Inspector Taliana.
READ: Commissioner wants inspector dismissed over hold up debacle
The inspector denied the findings of the board and sued minister Mallia, the chairman of the board, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.
He argued, among other things, that the board was not properly constituted, it acted beyond its powers, and did not follow procedure as laid down by law.
Inspector vindicated
Mr Justice Joseph Micallef, presiding the Civil Court, found in his favour.
He observed that after the 2013 general election, the members of the then-Police Board were asked to resign. But they were also told that they were to remain in their post until they were formally informed that their resignation had been accepted. This did not happen until August 28.
Meanwhile, a new board (consisting of new members but the chairman of the old board) was convened on August 10 to consider the mix-up case.
The court said that there could not be two Police Boards at the same time, and powers rested on the first board since it was still in office and had continued to meet.
The second board had been improperly constituted, it lacked jurisdiction, and therefore its deliberations and report were null.
Ministry interfered in board's actions
The court also found that the Home Affairs Ministry had interfered in the actions of the board, although there was no evidence that the members had been influenced.
It upheld a complaint by Inspector Taliana that some witnesses had been called by the ministry, and not by the board itself.
This happened, at least, in the case of Darryl Luke Borg and his mother, who were told by a senior ministry official to appear before the board and were even offered transport. When they showed up, the board had not even been aware of their presence, and it was a ministry employee who told the board’s chairman that there were persons who "wished to give evidence." The board then called them in.
The court also upheld a complaint by Inspector Taliana that some witnesses did not take an oath before appearing as witnesses. The court observed that according to law, witnesses had to give sworn testimony and the oath was to be administered by the chairman. This was mandatory.
The court therefore concluded that the investigations by the Police Board and its report of August 26, 2013 regarding Inspector Taliana were null and void as the board had acted beyond its powers.