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)