Many are rushing to “apologise” to MP Justyne Caruana for the rash judgements they had made with regards to her potential role in the resignation of Chris Said from the post of Parliamentary Secretary. It’s an interesting development and one that requires a leap of faith. The association began yesterday when the press conference called by Chris Said in order to announce his resignation. A journalist (PBS? Times?) asked Chris Said whether the fact that Justyne Caruana was the lawyer for the person accusing him of perjury meant that this case had a political element. Chris Said replied that he would let the people decide.
Over twelve hours passed in this day and age of internet and immediate newspaper updates before Justyne Caruana issued a clarification explaining that she was not the lawyer who presented the perjury challenge. Interesting. Or as we say on this side of the looking glass… curiouser and curiouser. Now without in any way questioning the factual side of the statement by the labour MP for the greater isle: i.e. that she was only the representative in the civil case but not in the cases alleging perjury we require a leap of faith. This leap of faith is that the civilian represented by Justyne Caruana in the civil domain of his legal battles is fully empowered with the knowledge of legal niceties related to a the laws and regulations that apply to lying under oath – or perjury.
To be more exact this client of Justyne Caruana’s would have to have had the insight, knowledge and quick wit to move for criminal proceedings di sua sponta, or of his own volition. For you see. Not only is the matter for which Chris Said is being accused infinitesimally technical – and far beyond the auspices of relevance to the ultimate outcome of the civil case – but it is also a legal conundrum visible only to the legal eye with which are endowed the most litigant and perfidious of practitioners of my not so humble trade. In other words you would have had to have been party to the civil proceedings in your lawyering capacity and to have spotted the possibility of creating a devious obstacle to the opposite lawyer concerned – full knowing that the ultimate effect of this case (for it is blatantly obvious to even the non-legal eye) will in no way impinge on the civil rights being claimed by the client concerned.
In other words. Between the moment Justyne Caruana’s client pounced on the opportunity to tackle Chris Said with a frivolous claim of perjury (we all know those facts) and the moment he got himself a lawyer to move on to the criminal stage of perjurial accusation there must have been an informed, intelligent and qualified person who must have pointd out this legal avenue afforded by Article 541 of the Criminal Code – his lawyer in the civil case for example? Are we allowed to doubt the client’s capability to do so of his own accord?
Worse still. (Ho-hum). Are we not allowed to consider the (admittedly) circumstantial fact that the perjury proceedings came within a short period of the hullaballoo in parliament when Chris Said was deemed to have slighted the pregnant Justyne by having misheard her vote? As at the time of Plategate J’accuse insists on motive and sincerely wishes that a couple of investigative journalists (preferably not of the bondi travesty kind) take up the challenge and look further into this mess. It deserves it.
Related articles by Zemanta
- What are Perjury Charges? (brainz.org)
19 replies on “The Leap of Faith”
j’accuse…debunking politicians’ prima facie white ls so you don’t have to!
This is not a leap of faith – this is pure speculation and part of a get-Justyne-Caruana-at-all-costs campaign
Life in Gozo must be very interesting.
Not quite a catchy campaign title Ettore eh? For heaven’s sake are you capable for one second to even question the facts glaring at you in the face?
The “facts that are staring me in the face” are that Chris Said is being charged with perjury.
Who presented the challenge and why is, at best/worst(according to your point of view),irrelevant or, at worst/best a totally separate issue.
However, they are being used by people like you and Daphne (strange bedfelloews) to obscure the issue.
Does a father who has been denied custody of his child truly need to be instigated his lawyer to think about instituting perjury proceedings against someone he believes (whether rightly or wrongly is immaterial in this situation) has taken lied under oath?
What is a lawyer to do if his/her client demands to know whether technically the possibility exists? Lie?
Heartbreaking Manuel. Try this for a solution: When Chris Said made the statement under oath he was also available for cross-examination by the father’s lawyer. Funnily enough the lawyer failed to question his recollection of facts as to the time of the court sitting.
Was it because it was irrelevant to the proceedings? Probably. Is the father’s desperation understandable? Definitely. Is the abuse of such desperation for political means commendable? I wonder what you think… rightly or wrongly.
That the lawyer did not question Dr. Said’s testimony is open to several interpretations, including that it is an indication that she had nothing to do with the subsequent decision to challenge his testimony.
Your question about “the abuse of such desperation for political means” is based on an entirely gratuitous assumption.
Dr. Caruana was dragged into all this unnecessarily, perhaps to counterbalance the political damage inevitably accruing to the PN.
By the way I happen to think that the available facts indicate that there was no intention to mislead the Court.
There can be only political damage if the facts are twisted. What political damage would there be if it were immediately made clear to the people that the perjury case is on a triviality on time? Unnecessarily? I am ready to bet that the next week will prove otherwise.
Apparently, it is far from being a triviality.
Apparently – that is what some people are feeding the news now. I like to ask questions rather than take appearances for granted.
Questions Ettore questions.
Could Said have been recalled by the party to give new witness? Did Said refuse? If it is not a vendetta and if it is not a triviality why then are there so many remedies to the error being ignored. Why the insistence on perjury proceedings?
Sorry but what is apparent is not necessarily true.
Because at the centre of all this there is person whose feelings have been very badly hurt. In situations like this, logic goes out of the window, and it is useless to try and apply solely cold reason to understand what is going on.
Which is why law is a profession and politics a service.Both of which require lots of understanding balanced with a clear application and respect of the law. “Mhux fier” is not an argument that fits in any of the two nor is “weggajt hafna”. Leave the theatrics out and concentrate on the facts.
“logic goes out of the window” is an argument often heard by louts once they calm down after beating someone to the pulp. “Ghax ma stajtx nirraguna dak il-hin sur magistrat”. Twegga madonna twegga. Hafna ugiegh. Thank god it has no legal standing as an argument.
This is a discussion on an internet forum, not a court of law. We’re trying to understand people’s behaviour, not the legal rights and wrongs of their actions.
You want to discuss if a father gets emotional if he loses his son in a custody battle? Are you serious? Should the whole matter be seen from the emotional point of view? Shall we? Who needs laws? We just invent a device that judges emotions and move on from there….
You are caricaturing what I wrote. How can one leave out the human element when one is evaluating all the implications of the case? The human element is what brought about the case in the first place, and what determined its subsequent, dramatic course.
I am not. I am calling a spade a spade. Every law case, every matter before the courts whether it is inheritance or custody or separation involves emotions. it is not a matter of caricature but of setting the standard of discussion. You want Oprah I want Forum.
You are contradicting yourself, Jacques. On the one hand you are saying that what is important is the law, not emotions. On the other hand you are getting all teary about the fact that that nasty Justyne Caruana is prosecuting that nice Dr Said, miskin.
You really have to choose your platform
Naturally, that should have been persecuting, not prosecuting.