Over the last few years, I have become critical of our judicial system and even more so since I personally experienced the injustices that are repeatedly committed in this republic of advocates. Hence I wish to publicly thank Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, sitting in the Court of Appeal who discredited, in no uncertain terms, a report submitted by court expert Martin Bajada. These judges have taken concrete steps to attempt to regain the trust of the public. Let us hope that others will follow suit so that finally we may be proud of our judiciary.

Our local magistrates continued to appoint Bajada as a court expert despite the fact that Martin Bajada was found guilty of deceit by a Court in the UK. Banning Bajada from any future appointments as a so-called court expert, would demonstrate that the judiciary mechanism sincerely wants reform for the better, more so after what the Chamber of Advocates has defined as a ‘racket’, the way our court experts are being appointed. It is significative that the Chamber of Advocates ended up using such a strong word regarding the appointment of  “experts”. 

In criminal cases, for any court expert to survive, he has to be a friend or the friend of a friend of police inspectors. Undoubtedly up to now, Bajada was one of those held in high repute by the Police. His reputation of a faithful police servant heightened during the time of Rizzo’s tenureship.

The Times journalist Ivan Camilleri is to be praised for highlighting the court's milestone judgement. But even before Camilleri started to investigate Bajada’s misdeeds, Evarist Bartolo had already made strong accusations against Bajada for the way the latter, as court expert, handled the case of Nicholas Azzopardi at the Police Depot. Bajada was the person responsible for analysing the CV camera footage at the depot. Strangely enough, the camera went blank at the exact moment when, according to the Police, Azzopardi attempted to escape. How credible is this version?

It is a shame that in all the magisterial inquiries held regarding Azzopardi’s case, none of the magistrates saw the need to question Bajada’s work and his analysis of the CV footage. Indeed I now believe that after the Court of Appeal's sentence, Bajada's work in connection with this bizarre case at the Depot should be reviewed thoroughly. 

It is unfortunate that after the 2013 elections, Labour stopped discussing this case and instead is now appearing to endorse the police force to be even more ineffective than it was three years ago.

From personal experience, I was dragged to court and accused of harassing and threatening a police officer after sending a letter to Police Commissioner Joe Rizzo. Rizzo’s inspector argued in court that sending a private letter amounts to public defamation.

To silence me, the police dragged me to court and to embarrass me, they invented all sorts of accusations to justify the case. It even appealed the decision taken by the Magistrate's court despite the fact that this is not normal court procedure in the lower court

In my case, it is evident that Bajada was not there to serve justice. It took him over two years to listen to the cds and when he did appear in court, he said that the recordings were “covert”. When my lawyer asked him to explain what he meant, he said that the language was garbled and not comprehensible. When my defence counsel challenged the court to allow the recordings to be played in the courtroom, the magistrate genuinely believing Bajada’s interpretation of facts told my advocate that there was no need to check Bajada, as she believed him.

These anecdotes should teach our magistrates not to believe all that is said by court experts and the police. 

It may appear that I am stating all this because I have a personal grudge but that is not so. I simply do not want others to have to undergo an experience similar to mine and have to go to court for eight long years to clear one’s name.

As the Court declared it is “in the general interest of the administration of justice” that not only is this report removed but that Dr Bajada is no longer appointed as court expert. As rightly said by the judges in their sentence, “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”