GUEST POST: The questions that need to be asked – and answered

Published: November 22, 2014 at 8:48am

manuel mallia

This was sent in by Vitor.

Some questions one would have expected at the press conference, but which do not seem to have been asked.

Who authorises police officers to carry guns, and through what procedure?

Now that the Minister tells us his two drivers are authorised to carry a gun, can the government publish the relevant documentation authorising it in this instance to allay any lingering doubts about due process?

Can we see the audit trail of the gun being signed in and out of the armoury?

There is no argument for this to wait until the magisterial inquiry as there is overwhelming public interest in confirming the law is being applied fully for the safety of the public.

If a police officer is allowed to carry a gun on ministerial protection duty, does that permission extend to carrying a gun while visiting his mother?

What are the rules of engagement under which a gun is issued?

Is there prima facie a case for illegal misuse of a firearm, the illegal use of a firearm in a residential area, the use of a service firearm outside its authorisation, a police officer being involved in a crime that he was duty bound to prevent and even possibly attempted murder?

If any of these might apply, has the police officer been arrested? (Mr Smith’s arrest did not have to wait for the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry).

Has the firearm been confiscated and is it being examined by ballistics experts? Are the ballistics experts and/or their relatives clients or former clients of the Police Minister?

Has the officer been examined for gunpowder residue?

Has the ministerial car (and its two sets of plates) been impounded by the police for examination?

In other countries, an external police force is brought in to investigate a police incident to demonstrate impartiality, and lay bodies exist to oversee any investigation into the police e.g. the Police Complaints Commission in the UK.

Here, the Police Minister is involved directly in a police incident and to compound matters, the victim of the shooting is/was a client of his professional practice.

What guarantees of transparency and impartiality are being put into place so that the public can retain some vestige of trust in the police?

The Police Minister’s overriding duty is to maintain public safety, and the integrity of the police is key to this.

Is there a conflict of interest between the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that this very serious incident is dealt with through the full force of the law and protecting his own political reputation – and therefore, even if one believes his statement that there has been no cover-up, is his position still tenable?

Is there a realistic chance of the public believing in an untrammelled and open investigation while the Minister for whom the police officer works is in charge of the police, when many believe this Minister has already made multiple changes in the upper echelons of the police for political reasons?

If there is no free and transparent investigation and unhindered process of the legal system though to the end (long term, of imprisonment if found guilty), this will escalate into a diplomatic incident, as the British government’s first duty (like the Maltese government’s, incidentally) is the protection of its citizens under the rule of law.

Who is in charge, and what are his priorities? The Prime Minister? How will he urgently re-establish public confidence in this process?

Any suggestion this has not been followed through diligently will tarnish citizens’ trust in this government, our institutions, and the individuals involved (Prime Minister, Home Affairs Minister, Police Commissioner…) for many years to come, as well as relationships with countries whose diplomatic support we need and investors who require stability and the rule of law – not to mention personal safety.

What are the government’s priorities here, and how is it going to make them unmistakably clear?




43 Comments Comment

  1. Alf says:

    More questions must be answered. Was there something which had to be kept under wraps?

    http://maltarightnow.com/news/2014/11/22/in-nazzjon-tizvela-ordnijiet-minn-fuq-nett-fil-korp-tal-pulizija/

  2. canon says:

    The police commissioner should hold a press conference to answer these legitimate questions.

    So should his minister.

  3. Pippa says:

    Malta is ever more seeming like Dodge City or even worse a mafia-controlled country.

    God help us, but we have to help ourselves.

    I hope those who voted for this rubbish are happy and relaxed with the changes they helped bring about.

    What a mess.

  4. Mim says:

    In Malta, just as in the case of Chris Cardona and the casino licence scandal, it is the Minister who decides who has a conflict of interest.

    Is Mallia any better?

    Vote Labour for lawlessness!

    • ciccio says:

      Wonder what Martin “This time Labour” Scicluna is making out of this. Wasn’t he an ‘expert’ on the army and that sort of stuff?

  5. ciccio says:

    I want other questions answered.

    The prime minister said he would ask Mallia to carry political responsibility if it turns out that he was involved in the accident and what followed.

    This is nonsense, because the Minister is in charge of the police and his “security driver” and because the Minister defended his “security driver” and the government lied about shots in the air.

    But even if we accepted the prime minister’s argument, we need to know, as suggested by Daphne earlier this week, why the criminal-lawyer-turned-Police-Minister felt the need to have “security drivers” – had he received credible threats?

    Did he know about specific threats towards him? If yes, who were those involved in specific threats?

    Then we need to know what was the real reason behind why the shooting took place. The broken mirror is not a credible excuse.

    There have already been too many lies and attempts to tamper with evidence that the cover up is all too evident.

    • Kevin says:

      If you recall, Muscat used very precise wording: he would require resignation only if Mallia knew what was going on during the fact and if he gave the order. That automatically disqualifies Mallia from resignation because there is no way we could ever establish these two facts.

      With plausible deniability Mallia, Muscat et al will always emerge scot free.

  6. curious says:

    If we were under a PN administration, Franco Debono would have written in to applaud Vitor.

    Excellent piece.

  7. Anthony Cachia Castelletti says:

    Vitor is right in all he wrote, particularly when referring to the possibility of this developing into a diplomatic incident.

  8. Alexander Ball says:

    Did he take the gun with him into his mother’s home or was it left in an unattended vehicle which was parked on the street?

  9. Kif inhi din? says:

    I wonder how many wing mirrors are damaged every year? It must add up to a phenomenal number magisterial enquiries.

  10. pablo says:

    Did not mention the glib comment of the Toad that his two drivers share the same gun.

    A serious police force does not allow this for obvious reasons which the Toad, with all his criminal clients and experience, and any six year old would know of.

    Is that Sheehan in the photo? If so, is he carrying his gun?

    • curious says:

      Sharing the same gun? As if it was a packet of crisps.

      Finding a certificate or whatever for one gun is already a problem, let alone for two. That must be the reason.

      ‘Paul, min se jispara int jew jien?

      U le, ejja naqtghu bix-xorti.’

  11. Jas says:

    Another important question needs to be asked by journalists. Has the officer been tested for substance abuse?

  12. Newman says:

    There are also a number of unanswered questions relating to the attempted cover-up. The government’s excuse for Wednesday evening’s DOI press statement is that it was based on the only information available at the time.

    Who was the source of that information?

    When Smith was stopped by the police in the tunnel, did he say that he was shot at?

    Did they check any independent evidence – the bullet holes in the car?

    Did they speak to MaltaRightNow and Daphne who were reporting an entirely different version of events?

    If they were not sure about the facts, why publish the statement? Why not say that the matter is being investigated?

    Was the Home Affairs Minister in any way involved in issuing the press statement?

    Was Ramona Attard, the Minister’s communications coordinator, involved in issuing the press statement?

    Was Kurt Farrugia, head of communications, involved?

    Was the PM involved? Was he informed before the press release was issued? Was he aware of the reports on MaltaRightNow and Daphne’s blog at the time that DOI statement was released?

  13. Makjavel says:

    Gotham City, but no Superman to put things back in order.

    We even have a clown messing it all up.

  14. Macduff says:

    Maybe now the switchers, the chattering classes, the chavs, the hamalli, the gaysszz, the k*rnuti kuntenti, the “pale” Nationalists, the “ma-nivvutax-ghax-ma-hariglix-il-permess”, the ‘I’m so hurt’ clan realize what they’ve done.

    They’ve elected a despotic, violent and oppressive regime who are selling the country to an alien and abusive totalitarian dictatorship, letting loose all sorts of gun-totting savages, undermining and destroying by attrition all institutions and democratic processes and norms – and getting filthy rich in the process.

    Bastards, the whole lot of you.

    We’re back to the 80s really, only much worse.

    • Cikku says:

      Prosit, Macduff. Ma stajtx titkellem aħjar. Naqbel miegħek mija fil-mija. Il-ħażin hu li aħna qed inbatu magħhom. Veru nies egoisti. Bastards the whole lot of them.

    • Anthony Cachia Castelletti says:

      Up until the last election, this was a democratic country, in which everyone had the right to air their views and vote however they wish (even if we do not agree with how they voted).

      Most of these people are intelligent people and are already very disappointed that what they did with their vote gave them the opposite of what they expected.

      I am sure that when the time comes, they will put things right.

  15. Mim says:

    Remind me again, is Mallia the criminal lawyer who celebrated his election victory by throwing a party for and hugging incarcerated criminals?

  16. Katrin says:

    The devil is in the detail. If I hit with my car mirror the mirror of another car, the other car mirror looks anything like the one on Mallia’s car. Make a google search for broken car mirror – none looks like that one. Note the way the casing broke. It looks as if someone had deliberately smashed it from on top.

    You normally don’t hear it either when someone bumps with his mirror against your mirror while you are sitting inside a house, because that impact is far too minor.

  17. curious says:

    The fact that Smith hasn’t been arraigned raises a lot of questions.

    Daphne has already pointed out that usually an arraignment is made immediately after such a long period of detainment at the Police Headquarters, and the accused is taken straight to court.

    I am sure that this situation is a double-edged knife. If Smith is charged, details that we don’t know will surely come out. If he isn’t, the government will suffer more over the whole cock-up.

    There must be a reason why Smith and his family are not talking. Not that I blame them but it is an indication that ‘discussions’ are taking place and that the government hasn’t as yet decided on the final version of the story to hold on to.

  18. Kevin says:

    Why hasn’t Mr Smith been interviewed?

    [Daphne – Attempts have been made, but he doesn’t want to speak to the press.]

    • Gahan says:

      He struck a deal; they bought his silence.

      Mr Smith won’t be accused about anything in court. The police will conveniently drop the case or present some charge with the wrong time, wrong passport number or mistaken number plates.

    • Ta'sapienza says:

      Probably had the shit scared out of him.

    • KALANCC MA (cantab) says:

      Most probably Smith has been threatened and advised to keep silent. Remember threats, cover-ups and frame-ups have always been the long standing hallmark of the Labour Party.

  19. milton says:

    Are we going to assume that some Ministers’ drivers are being in Parliament’s Strangers Gallery armed with guns?

  20. kev says:

    These are pertinent questions and I’m sure the acting commissioner is well aware of procedure.

    Clearly, the thin-blue-line-vs-them mentality is at work here. And it’s a dog’s breakfast.

    As for a ‘diplomatic incident’, well, I wouldn’t bet on that.

    • kev says:

      Good move by Joseph Muscat – https://twitter.com/JosephMuscat_JM/status/536176560764907520

      [Daphne – Not really, no. It would be a good move if he did it after sacking his Minister of the Interior. You can exactly have an investigation into the actions of the Interior Minister while he remains the incumbent. That’s a farce.]

      • kev says:

        I did say it’s a move, as in ‘chess move’. Will Simon Busuttil accept the challenge?

      • Jozef says:

        That’s just an admission he can’t decide for himself what to do.

        Challenging the Leader of the Opposition to do what, the dirty work required to settle his dilemma?

        Who’s the PM in this place?

      • kev says:

        There is little a Board of Inquiry can do without the full cooperation of the police. It’s that simple. Muscat is playing politics. Will Busuttil play ball?

  21. anthony says:

    The fact that Mr Smith refuses to be interviewed is understandable.

    I have a very good idea what the reason is.

    The mind boggles.

  22. KM says:

    What about the beer bottle? Has the police found it and confirmed Smith’s finger prints?

  23. Christiaan Huygens says:

    Wikipedia: “Sheehan is [derived] from the Irish word síocháin, meaning peace.” Some peace.

  24. thinking aloud says:

    We still don’t know why Smith was there?

  25. CR says:

    The big question is that if the driver was using the ministerial car, then the minister was either in the car (he wasn’t) or attending some ministerial duty, in which case the driver should wait outside. He doesn’t have (or shouldn’t have) permission to go anywhere…..just that should be enough for dismissal (not suspension).

    [Daphne – You can rest assured that he had his boss’s permission to leave to ferry Carmela Mallia to Mrs Sheehan.]

Leave a Comment