There should only have been one verdict in today’s court case before Magistrate Farrugia and thankfully for those who have some residual faith in the system that outcome was confirmed. The Police Commissioner’s last ditch attempt to retain possession of Norman Vella’s tablet and phone was thrown out on the most basic of bases: lack of reasonable suspicion.
As we already saw in an earlier post (Persons of Interest) the whole farce that led up to Norman Vella’s detention was a transparent combination of abuse of power and prima donna reactions (yet again) from those among the Taghna Lkoll crowd who still cannot come to terms with the borderlines and ethics of being in government. As much respect as I have for Comodini Cachia and the rest of the Nationalist lawyers having a field day as though the ghost of 1984 was back, I must insist that much of this case depended on the litmus test of whether our courts still retained a modicum of sanity.
Thankfully they do. Magistrate Farrugia could not but see the obvious bumbling of a police force (or members thereof) eager to over-respond to a complaint by people “connected” in the corridors of power (Jesus Wept). As the drama unravelled we could see the tenuous allegations of crime become at worst jokes in a panto. “There was a photo” became “actually not really a photo at the airport and we are still combing cameras”. The best was the Commissioner’s excuse that he needed to keep the confiscated goods otherwise if he released them there would still be a shadow of doubt on Vella. See? The police confiscated the material TO PROVE HIM INNOCENT.
Not even the heady days of “moralment konvint” beat this. If I recall well Manwel Mallia recently mentioned an upgrading of the police academy to some sort of college where the police would learn the finer art of the law and how to apply it. That seems to be one hell of an uphill task given how the police manage to make a basic application of the most basic laws by a defence lawyer sound like the greatest twist in a John Grisham movie.
In normal democracies heads would roll. In the UK the head of the (insert region here) Constabulary would be constantly grilled on the media while an Independent Police Enquiry would be set up to see why so many police resources and hours were wasted simply because a couple of communications coordinators with delusions of grandeur called in to report their distaste at being photographed.
That’s a normal democracy. But this is not a normal democracy. In this democracy of ours the police are told that they were “doing their duty”, some people will point to the arrogant Norman Vella and say that he had no business (doing what exactly? no business not taking photos?). For heaven’s sake some self-appointed investigators will point to this mess and blame AD voters for the reason things have come to this, quickly forgetting that much of the blame lies at the feet of an unelectable incumbent last time round.
Whoever is to blame is not the point. The point is that our custodians have been hung up to dry and shown to be unable to think for their own and apply the law as the guardians that they should be. It should not have taken a Magistrate to confirm that there were no grounds for a crime.
Their motto is Domine Dirige Nos… God guides us. I guess God must be taking a break. Let’s hope he’s there to help us next time they go on some sort of renegade mission.
2 replies on “God Help Us”
I have not read the judgment in this case as I could not to go to Auberge de Castile to read the copy left there. Besides no court judgment is gospel truth. There may also be further legal proceedings on this case. However double standards seem to be at play when compared to another controversial case, a few months ago, which also put the police under scrutiny. In the previous case, a board led by a retired judge concluded that a police inspector was guilty of misconduct as he did not inform his colleagues and superiors that he found the culprit of a crime while his colleagues had arraigned another person on the basis of a mistaken report. Prominent politicinas and other media personalities sprang to the defence of police official and the independence of the former judge was put into question. In the present case, there may also be case of a mistaken report, but there is no mistaken identity, but only a question of what the rather vague concept of reasonable suspicion of committing a crime means. In both these cases the actions of the police may have been based on a mistaken premise, however I do not think there was any bad faith on their part.
Ah, Mr. Borg, but you forget to factor in the fact that in this case the “crime” (irrespective of whether it happened or not) is an imaginary crime.