Lawyer Mario de Marco today hit out at the prosecution for failing to follow-up on potential evidence that showed his client is the victim and not the aggressor in this case.
Defending Jean Paul Aquilina of Mosta, who stands accused of attacking and injuring two police officers, Dr de Marco argued that that the images taken by police forensic experts of his client’s injuries are compatible with a beating and not, as has been alleged by one of the police officers, that Mr Aquilina sustained his facial injuries after knocking his head against the door of the police car after throwing himself onto it. Dr de Marco also said that his client’s car was damaged but the investigating inspector did not bother to verify this.
The incident took place in Mgarr at 1am on 3 May after RIU police ordered Mr Aquilina to pull over. While one of the police officers who stopped Mr Aquilina claimed that the accused was out of hand and attacked them, the accused is stating that he was attacked by the RIU officers – David Camilleri and Mark Tonna.
The prosecution, led by Inspector Nicholas Vella, added a number of charges which were initially left out of the charge sheet which include negligent driving and failing to wear his seat belt. Aquilina is also accused of giving false details to police. This sparked Dr de Marco to ask the investigating inspector why it had suddenly dawned on the inspector to add these charges. The inspector replied that the charges had been added long before today’s hearing.
At the start of the sitting, Dr de Marco argued that the police officers could not be represented by lawyer Abigail Critien parte civile since they are public officers and if so it is the prosecution that represents them. Magistrate Carol Peralta, who is presiding over the case, said that he will decide whether the lawyer can represent the police officers parte civile at a later stage.
It also emerged in court that the photos taken of the accused by Forensic Police only showed the injuries of his face but none were taken of his blood-drenched t-shirt, opposed to the images taken of the police officers which included their torn polo shirts.
During cross examination, Dr de Marco accused the investigating inspector of leading a one-sided investigation since he did not call in Mr Aquilina to ask him what happened that day, especially when a complaint by the partner of the victim had been filed against the police officers. He accused the prosecution of engaging in a string of mistakes such as not ordering a breathalyser test for instance to determine whether Mr Aquilina was drunk at the time of the incident.
Argument ensues between De Marco and POC president
An argument ensued between Dr de Marco and Police Officer Union president Inspector Sandro Camilleri. At one point, Inspector Camilleri spoke in the court room which led Dr de Marco to point out that he has no say in this case since he does not form part of the prosecution team. Magistrate Peralta had to intervene to calm the two down and asked Inspector Camilleri to decide what his role in is in this case. Inspector Camilleri was ordered by the magistrate to say nothing further. Inspector Camilleri argued that all he said was for Dr De Marco to give the police officer who was testifying and who is directly involved in the case (PC Camilleri) a chance to reply to his (Dr De Marco’s) questions.
PC Camilleri’s testimony
PC David Camilleri testified that Mr Aquilina attacked him and his colleague (PC Tonna) after having given them false details twice. He claimed that Aquilina and him fell to the ground several times during the scuffle which he said started when Mr Aquilina ran towards him and slapped him on his forehead.
He said that Aquilina was in a fit of rage and the two officers could not hold him down. He claimed that Mr Aquilina even tried to choke him at one time and go for his pistol. He also threatened them that he would come back with a revolver and that he would report them to a minister.
Dr de Marco said that the light injuries sustained by PC Camilleri are not compatible to a beating as was claimed by PC Camilleri himself, that he was thrown to the ground several times by Mr Aquilina. He said that if one were to argue who sustained the worse injuries of the lot, it was his client, especially since his client was admitted to Mater Dei Hospital for further treatment while the officers only needed assistance from a polyclinic doctor.
Dr De Marco presents it-Torca print edition showing images of police officer’s torn polo shirt
Dr de Marco presented a print edition of It-Torca – the General Workers’ Union newspaper which the POC union forms part of. An article accompanied by images of the police officer’s torn clothes was published in its front-page. Dr De Marco asked PC Camilleri if he had passed the images over to the newspaper to which PC Camilleri replied: “Yes”.
Dr de Marco exhibits PC Camilleri’s 2013 Facebook posts
Dr de Marco presented a number of screen grabs of Facebook posts shared by PC David Camilleri back in 2013. The prosecution argued that these posts are not relevant or linked to the case in question. One of the posts read: ‘F*** the police... so i said f*** your 911 call, i’ll get to your dying home boy when i finish my coffee’.
Dr de Marco said that in view of these posts, PC Camilleri – who is a witness in this case – lacks credibility. “The screenshot exhibited at this stage is further proof to show a trait of action and the character of Camilleri in the confrontation of victims of crime,” he told the court.
On its part, the prosecution team argued that this is an attempt to intimidate a witness and taint his image. “These posts have no relevance to the incident in question and these posts go back two years,” Inspector Vella said.
Magistrate still to decide whether he will order magisterial inquiry
The case is set to continue on 3 June but Magistrate Peralta said that he still has to decide whether a magisterial inquiry should be ordered in this case. He asked why no magisterial inquiry was ordered in the first place and only an internal police inquiry started. The magistrate ordered the Police Commissioner to testify in the next sitting and this is when he would decide.