Our local politicians from both sides of Parliament who belong to the fraternity of lawyers have lately been competing for the merit of implementing a suspect’s so-called legal right of representation during interrogation by police. They are however terming this as “an intention to defend the public’s rights prior and while being interrogated”. Yet it seems that the same lawyers are not concerned about the victims of crime or the general public, and are more concerned with defending criminals under the pretext of human rights implementation.
As the situation now stands, the police can hold suspects “incommunicado” (deprived of communications with third persons) during the period of arrest before they are brought to trial (within 48 hours) or released due to lack of evidence. When interrogations are conducted appropriately under such conditions, invaluable information is sometimes obtained from the suspect, who on realising that the police have collected substantial evidence, expresses his remorse and confesses. This has occurred on several occasions, as revealed during court cases when these are open to the public, and in media reports of such cases.
On the other hand, as we have seen many times in movies, documentaries, and media reports of foreign criminal trials, once this golden opportunity is taken away from police investigations, the lawyers’ presence during such interrogations would certainly hinder police interrogation of criminal suspects and jeopardize police investigations. We have seen time and time again during these investigative interrogations that lawyers immediately advise their clients (the suspects) not to say anything that might incriminate them (in the United States Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was introduced to protect against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure, also known as the Miranda rights). In the end it turns out that all a suspect does during such interrogations is to give his particulars and keep his mouth shut, even if he feels he should confess to being guilty of his crimes due to being troubled by an uneasy conscience. Moreover, he will claim that he is unable to pay the lawyer’s expenses for representation, and this will consequently become another taxpayers’ burden.
To argue that police forces will be given DNA equipment as compensation is preposterous. In this day and age, it is ludicrous even to contemplate that our police still do not have such equipment and have to send samples abroad for DNA testing. Do we consider ourselves a European country when most countries in Europe have DNA laboratories in towns and villages? Or are we some kind of Third World country that can only enhance police investigations equipment as compensation for depriving them of their advantageous interrogation techniques?
Our police force has managed to do great work, even obtaining the conviction of a Chief Justice and a judge after eavesdropping on conversations of convicted criminals who were bribing such adjudicators to hand out lighter sentences. Had it been up to our political lawyers, this might not have been allowed as they would claim protection of privacy for drug traffickers and other criminals, and consequently our judicial system would be in shambles.
Wherever this concept of the so-called “Fifth Amendment” has been implemented, crime has increased and foreign cities and towns have been taken over by criminal gangs. So far our country has been kept safe from vicious criminals due to the good work of our dedicated law enforcement officers, and so long as they are allowed to do their job without political (or lawyers’) interference and assisted with latest technological analytical equipment our country remains safe. I hope that the Justice Minister does not give in to the demands of these political lawyers who, in their quest of attempting to obtain any political and/or financial gain, will certainly not get my vote but my utter condemnation.
Raymond Sammut
MELLIEHA