Yesterday’s anticipated release of the findings of the independent Police Board inquiry on the wrongful arrest of a man for a hold up raised many more questions than the answers it gave.
While the Police Board has recommended that disciplinary and possibly criminal action be taken against Inspector Elton Taliana over the case involving a man who was wrongly accused in court, little is said about the fact that CID officers were responsible for arresting the wrong person, Darryl Luke Borg.
In a 13-page report published early yesterday afternoon, Inspector Taliana was the only official found to have been at fault, even though he had arraigned the correct person in court, because he did not inform others that he knew it had been Roderick Grech who had committed the crime before he was actually charged in court.
The Police Commissioner is currently seeking the Attorney General’s advice following the Police Board’s recommendation, according to a police statement issued after the home affairs ministry released the report.
The case will be brought before the Permanent Disciplinary Board within the ministry. Inspector Taliana’s shortcoming was described to have been “grievous” and the police said that it might lead to his dismissal from the corps.
Inspector Taliana may also be suspended from the Corps with immediate effect, the statement noted.
Addressing a press conference late in the afternoon, the Opposition’s spokesman for justice and national security Jason Azzopardi said a board appointed by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, supposedly on the principles of meritocracy, has found a police official who actually arraigned a man who admitted to a hold-up guilty.
“The truth has been turned the other way around,” Dr Azzopardi said, stressing that a board presided over by an independent individual, retired Judge Franco Depasquale, does not necessarily make the board independent.
He pointed out that the four other members of the board were Labour Party candidate David Farrugia Sacco, Deandra Schembri – the wife of PL MP Silvio Schembri, Nexos general manager Keith Chetcuti, who replaced the Home Affairs and National Security Ministry’s Chief of Staff Silvio Scerri at the company when he relinquished his former duties, and Victor Gruppetta, owner of Merlin Car Hire, which Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia had previously represented in court.
Dr Azzopardi highlighted how the report had crucified the official who solved a crime by arraigning the right person in court, and who had pleaded guilty. He said the public now expects to learn why an innocent person had been arraigned in the first place, spent two days in jail after being charged by CID officials, and also who would be shouldering the responsibility.
In the meantime, the report did not at any point criticise the operations of the CID and, asking reasons for that, Dr Azzopardi insinuated this could have been related to pre-electoral promises that could not be kept if the officers had been implicated in any wrongdoing.
Ministry slam accusations as ‘politically immature’
At a press conference in the evening, Minister Mallia labelled Dr Azzopardi’s accusations as politically immature and inadequate.
Dr Mallia said the opposition spokesperson had also “irresponsibly” criticised the Police Board over the course of inquiry.
The report does not condemn anyone and does not reach any conclusions apart from providing recommendations, Dr Mallia said, adding that the board had gone through all the facts. He also noted that the report had been published in its entirety and insisted that the board was comprised of individuals of different political opinions.
Not commenting on the report per se, and noting that the case is still open, he said Dr Azzopardi had arrived at the wrong conclusions – something which Dr Azzopardi should explain.
On Mr Taliana’s shortcomings, Dr Mallia said he could not understand how an inspector of certain experience was unable to draw up a charge sheet and gave information to people who were not associated with the case.
Inspector’s lawyer shocked by report
A statement released yesterday by Inspector Taliana’s lawyer, Joe Zammit Maempel, expressed shock at the report’s content, which, he said, goes against the basic principles of justice.
All logical reasoning was completely sidelined and the official who followed the law was found guilty while no remark was made about the person who had arraigned an innocent person, who was held in prison for two days, except to remark that these mistakes are sometimes committed.
The lawyer pointed out Mr Grech had admitted to the hold-up to Inspector Taliana at 11.25am. Immediately afterwards, he issued a charge sheet, collected the balaclava and toy gun used in the crime and 50 minutes later, at 12.15pm, Mr Grech had been arraigned in court. He immediately informed the court that another person had been charged on the same case and was in prison. This was reported by the media, however the board concluded this had not been said because it was not recorded in a verbal statement.
Citing Article 5 (3) in Chapter 319 u Art. 356 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta, the lawyer said Inspector Taliana had been obliged to immediately arraign the detainee in court.
Mr Grech could have admitted before the inspector and later denied charges in court. However, it happened that Grech admitted in court and at that moment, Inspector Taliana informed his superiors that an innocent person was being detained.
If Inspector Taliana had broken the law and informed his superiors, things would not have been any better for Mr Borg because only the court can release a person held in custody, and Mr Taliana’s superior’s could not have released him.
Dr Zammit Maempel insisted that Inspector Taliana had scrupulously followed the law but the board effectively said that he should have instead broken it.
What gives rise to questions is the fact that since 9 August, sections of the media had decided to embark on a character assassination to tarnish Inspector Taliana’s reputation, he said.
He said he will be studying the possible options for an independent scrutiny of the report.
The police board’s findings
The board yesterday stated that Mr Borg was the victim of a false tip-off that CID inspector Carlos Cordina had received.
Mr Borg had been found guilty of drug possession and two thefts in the past – a supermarket robbery and the theft of clothes from Ghadira.
He was arrested and wrongly accused in connection with The Convenience Store theft, in Birkirkara on 4 August, after an informer mentioned him to the police. Despite his previous criminal accusations, the police did not have a photo of him and the informer had made a Facebook photo available to the police.
Despite insisting on his innocence, Mr Borg was picked up from Mount Carmel Hospital, where he was receiving treatment, arrested, charged in court and remanded in custody after Inspector Cordina’s objection to bail on the grounds that he could not be trusted because he was receiving treatment at Mount Carmel Hospital.
While a Department of Information press release on 10 August said the independent police board was to investigate the case of a person mistakenly accused in court and to establish the series of events that led to his arraignment, as well as the necessary steps to be taken, clear terms of reference were not given, nor are any such terms of reference clearly stated in the report.
The Police Board did not provide the reason behind the police not having photos of Mr Borg and the fact they assumed he had committed the hold-up because he had been found guilty of theft in the past and on the basis of a tip-off. The CID also knew he was pestering people for money and that a certain ‘Gejtu’ lent him some money which he was using to sustain his drug addiction.
In its report, the board stated that it did not go into the way in which police carry out their investigations or the trustworthiness of informers. It notes however, that after examining CCTV footage and comparing this with the Facebook photo of Mr Borg, it could not be ascertained that Mr Borg was the person in the footage. Despite having a similar hairstyle, there were doubts on whether the clothes were the same.
The report also notes that the case attracted a lot of attention because Mr Borg had been denied bail.
“Probably, if the prosecutor agreed with the magistrate’s suggestion to send the accused (Mr Borg) back to Mount Carmel, the consequences of the case would have been much different,” it says. “… Unfortunately, several people are arrested and charged in court and later found to be innocent – it cannot be said that in such circumstances, the police would have necessarily acted wrongly”.
It continues that few would have known of Mr Borg’s arrest before Mr Grech was charged with the same crime, which he had admitted to Inspector Taliana. The board reiterated that it was not within its competence to evaluate the judgement of responsible officials unless on doubts of reasonable transparency.
The board understood that when Inspector Taliana arraigned Roderick Grech on charges of the hold-up, he knew very well that another person was being investigated in connection with the case. Instead of working to have Mr Borg discharged from prison and acquitted, he chose to leave him in prison and arraign another person who pleaded guilty to the charges.
On 7 August, Inspector Taliana together with court expert Martin Bajada, were going through CCTV footage from Da Vinci Hospital and St Anne’s Clinic in connection with the hold-up. While copying footage from the latter clinic, Inspector Taliana received a phone call from Superintendent Antonello Grech, who is in charge of the district, giving instructions for him to quit the case because CID officers had arraigned a person in court in connection with it. At that point, Inspector Taliana stopped the work in hand and went to discuss the situation with Superintendent Grech. They spoke about Mr Borg and discussed the description of the robber, who was said to have been “short”.
On the same day, Mr Borg was charged in court (by CID officials) and was remanded in custody.
In a statement he signed, Inspector Taliana said that on 8 August, he received information from an informer that the person arraigned was not the one involved in the hold-up but Roderick Grech, known as ‘ic-China iz- Zghir’, had actually committed the crime.
The board could not understand how Inspector Taliana, despite being given clear instructions, did not feel the need to inform another official before Mr Grech was interrogated and charged in court.
“It is not easy to understand how Taliana could have forgotten about these procedures and followed a tip-off alone,” the board said.
In his testimony to the police board, Inspector Taliana said that before the arraignment, he informed Duty Magistrate Claire Stafrace that another person had been charged in connection with this hold-up and she told him to “bring in the accused”, who pleaded guilty.
No verbal statement on the matter was recorded at the start of the arraignment and once it was over, according to the inspector, the magistrate left the courtroom. Inspector Taliana felt it was also not necessary for him to inform other police officials about the situation because on the basis of Article 137 of the Criminal Code, the Duty Magistrate is to be informed about this. Article 37 states:
“Any magistrate who, in a matter within his powers, fails or refuses to attend to a lawful complaint touching an unlawful detention, and any officer of the Executive Police, who, on a similar complaint made to him, fails to prove that he reported the same to his superior authorities within twenty-four hours, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months”.
It transpired that Inspector Taliana had asked Superintendent Magri for a hold-up charge sheet but he did not explain why he needed this. However, he informed Superintendent Magri of what had happened following the arraignment. He also called Magistrate Doreen Clarke to inform her of the case and she replied that she would look into it.
The board did not seem to have spoken to the two magistrates mentioned.
‘Truth turned the other way around’ – PN
During yesterday’s press conference, Dr Azzopardi emphasised that the board’s terms of reference are found on page seven of the report in a paragraph which says Inspector Taliana charged Roderick Grech in relation to the hold up when he knew another person was in prison in relation to the same case and instead of seeing how to drop charges against Mr Borg and have him released, chose to leave him in prison while arraigning another person who had actually admitted to the theft.
The board should have investigated the operations of the CID department because it does not give any reasons as to why Mr Borg was wrongly accused, Dr Azzopardi stressed.
He insisted he is not Inspector Taliana’s lawyer and that he was speaking out of a sense of justice and logic. The feeling within the police corps now is that officers are afraid to carry out their duties.
Asked whether he believed Inspector Taliana had demonstrated shortcomings because, ethically, he should have informed his colleagues about the situation, Dr Azzopardi said he was duty-bound to charge the detainee in court in the shortest possible time – which he did.
He added that Inspector Taliana was condemned because he continued to investigate but there is no guarantee the charges against Mr Borg would have been dropped had he chosen to abandon the investigation.
He pointed out that the law at no point obliged Inspector Taliana to inform his superiors on the developing situation. Meanwhile, the board did not investigate the operations of the police in terms of improving coordination.
Dr Azzopardi said he also failed to understand why the report completely exonerated the CID department allowing it to go scot-free.
He concluded this was a “two weights and two measures” decision but notwithstanding this, it highlights the shortcomings of the Police Corps, especially those of the CID department because there was no reasonable suspicion of Mr Borg’s guilt when he was arraigned.
He insisted that the Court of Magistrates in this case, was the only institution able to drop charges against Mr Borg and Inspector Taliana did the right thing to inform the court of the situations and charge the right person in connection with the case.
Moreover, for completion’s sake, Dr Azzopardi said the report should have included all the testimony heard by the board, which was not found in the report.