A decree which found Police Commissioner Raymond Zammit to be in contempt of court and imposed a fine of €300 after the accused in a libel case was not notified of a sitting has been revoked by a Court today.

The fine was imposed by Magistrate Francesco Depasquale, who noted that the police's failure to notify the accused meant that judgment had to be postponed yet again.

The libel case dates back to 2001, and was filed by Richard Cachia Caruana against the editor of Labour Party newspaper KullĦadd at the time, Felix Agius.

The newspaper had alleged that Mr Cachia Caruana had insisted that the police should interrogate MaltaToday managing editor Saviour Balzan and Sharon Ellul Bonici over an article they had published, an allegation described as an invention by then-Police Commissioner George Grech on the same day the article appeared on KullĦadd.

Magistrate Depasquale said that a judgment had been formed quite some time ago, but had to be put off time and time again since the police were failing to notify Mr Agius.

He said that it was "evident" that there were attempts to tamper with the justice system before fining the police commissioner. The magistrate also ordered that a copy of the decree should be sent to Mr Zammit and to Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia.

The commissioner, on his part, categorically denied any attempts to tamper with the justice system, stating that such allegations negatively affected relations between the police and the Courts of Malta.

He filed an application objecting to the court decree, in which he insisted that there was no attempt to tamper with justice. He stressed that he had no idea about the case, which was being handled by one of his subordinates.

Mr Zammit also noted that the last correspondence with the Police Commissioner dates back to 18 June - when his predecessor, Peter-Paul Zammit, was still in office - and said that he had not been personally involved.

The acting commissioner also pledged that he would do his utmost to ensure that police procedures are improved to ensure that future incidents are avoided.

In response, a Court observed that the decree was addressed to the Police Force, and not to the Mr Zammit in his personal capacity.

It pointed out that further correspondence was addressed to the Commissioner on July 10 - days after he took office, but said that it was not interested in dragging out the matter.

After expressing appreciation at Mr Zammit's pledge to strive to avoid a repeat of such incidents, it decided to revoke the fine, whilst auguring that Mr Agius will be properly notified in time for the next sitting.