It SHOULD not be a Catch 22 because the party in power FORBIDS its members to be Freemasons.

Le hi, it was Dr Austin Gatt who appointed Dr Arrigo as chief justice, the culmination of gargantuan lack of judgement…as always.

[Daphne – And it was Joe Fenech who made him a judge. You can’t become chief justice without first being a judge.]

Thanks, honestly, for finding the time for your blog and opinions. Please keep it up.

These “character referees” are always brought on whan all else fails and the accused hopes somebody will somehow say something which will mitigate the negative image and possibly induce the judge to shave off a few months of the sentence. Arrigo has done nothing more than practically all those who have been found guilty of serious crimes by our courts try to do. Yet, the referees’ statements do help us realise that the guilty person is no monster, but someone who does have positive facets to his character.

Arrigo took his chance, and appears to have lost heavily. We do not know whether Vella chose to plead guilty out of genuine remorse or because he knew (or was told) that the case agaisnt him was overwhelming, and he would be doing himself a favour by avoiding a drawn-out trial.

What we do know is that, once again, the mighty have fallen. Bad choices beget consequences. But I cannot find it in my heart to look at Arrigo without feeling a degree of pity along with the relief that in this case, at least, crime will not pay. There but for the grace of God…?

[Daphne – ‘There but for the grace of God go I’ applies to accidental circumstance and to those situations over which we have no control, Manuel. It does not apply to situations which are the consequence of our own depraved choices. It is not the grace of God that stops you taking bribes and consorting with criminals, but your own personal decision, for which you are wholly responsible. Your pity is provoked not so much by the man himself but by the wanton, pointless waste of it all. Yes, we’ve probably all done things of which we are deeply ashamed, but I think most of us can say that taking bribes from drug-dealers when in a position of such great responsibility is just not one of them. What’s worse is that this man obviously feels no remorse for what he has done, nor does he understand how serious his crime was. He doesn’t feel regret for the crime itself (he doesn’t even understand that it was a crime). He feels regret for the consequences of that crime which HE is experiencing. I have more compassion for Patrick Vella, who was crucified by shame, appeared to understand fully the magnitude of what he did, admitted his guilt, behaved with (ha) dignity, went to prison, served his sentence, and has been discreet ever since. Despite his social background and his schooling, Noel Arrigo has never been a gentleman. He behaved like a knave in his private and business life. He behaved like a knave as chief justice, and true to form, he was a craven knave throughout his trial. He could at least have made an effort to go down like a gentleman, but no – a knave until the end. Forget his crime, and stick to the trial: all that lying, posturing and trying to get off, like somebody raised on the street in a slum, warrants scorn and not pity, especially when you consider that he can’t blame his background. He should have handled it like Patrick Vella did, and gone down with a bit of dignity.]

“And that is what Noel and Patrick did to our rule of law. They have demeaned it.”

“Noel and Patrick”? Any particular reason why you are on first-name terms with them, Mr Debono?

Joseph Mifsud darb`ohra flok tahseb hazin missek iccekjat meta lahaq.

Pat as Fred Astaire is stating down here. A priest gives one the benefit of the doubt; his duty is to save one’s soul, if one says that he repents he shouldn’t doubt him. Now when a priest is called on the witness stand to give a character reference he speaks only of what he saw in the person who always behaved well in front of him.

The accused wouldn’t have asked for the priests’ evidence if he was seen by them handing rough-riders to the Theology students at the university.

People always try to behave in front of a priest let alone someone who plans to call them on the witness stand to speak about their behaviour. Dun Ang recommended il-pupa.

[Daphne – In my experience, many priests tend to prefer people who don’t behave because like everyone else they can have it up to here with suck-ups, and also because the people who don’t behave are much more amusing company.]

David S, a priest never looks into one’s face. He has a mission to accomplish and that is all. He may be blue, red, yellow, porporina. All of them are his flock and his mission is to put them on the right path.

So what you are saying is that a priest’s character testimony is by default bad, as they are willfully gullible. If that is the case, why would a priest even be called to the stand?

@ David S: Dun Rene` Camilleri is a priest not a judge, il-Porporina was given a character reference on TV by Dun Ang Seychell.
When someone speaks to a priest, the priest has to assume that the individual who is speaking to him is telling the truth and has no hidden agenda.

The story goes that some monks called St Augustine to see a donkey on a tree branch. He ran to find out that it was a silly joke. Some other monks told him that he was a bit naive to believe that an ass ended up on a tree, his reply was that he would prefer to believe that an ass climbed a tree rather than a Christian tell him a lie.

So when one reads about such character references by priests one has to keep in mind that they would prefer to believe that a donkey went up a tree rather than the accused repentant judge was pulling their leg.