The jelly baby celebrates
Tony Zarb says that the GWU's principles haven't changed - then he paid tribute to Sammy Meilaq (pictured here)
Is it the summer heat or is that Tony Zarb making me sick?
The country was in suspense – well, those who knew or cared about the consequences, at least – as to what would happen at ST Microelectronics when employees vetoed the rescue package negotiated between the corporation and the government.
Now Zarb pops out of the woodwork like an overstuffed jelly baby in a bad suit to claim that he has saved the day because employees have voted in favour of a renegotiated package.
Who does he think he is kidding? For a moment there, it looked like those ST Microelectronics employees were going to self-sabotage and take the country with them, aided and abetted by their General Workers Union.
Take the country with them, I hear you ask? Yes, of course: what happens at ST Microelectronics happens to us all. The impact of 1,500 people being made jobless overnight will put cracks in the entire economy.
Whether you sell cars, food or advertising, that kind of instant surge in unemployment will hit you hard. But there’s worse: remove ST Microelectronics’ export value from the equation, and Malta’s balance of trade is thrown right off kilter.
That’s why, I imagine, the government bent over backwards to persuade the corporation to keep its Malta operation going, using the best means of persuasion known to man: the profit motive.
Neither the prime minister nor the finance minister can have been getting much sleep, preparing for Plan B: announce to the country that ST Microelectronics is packing up and leaving, with a nice big recession as a parting gift.
And that’s why the General Workers Union and its members were so wrong to use that kind of brinkmanship in what was, essentially, a zero-sum game. ST held all the cards. They had and still have nothing to lose.
There’s not much leverage the other party can use in those circumstances. You have to use something else, something that it is not in the General Workers Union’s power to use because the GWU is not the government or the finance ministry.
Tony Zarb boasted yesterday that because of his efforts, employees at ST will lose “€250 over two years” instead of “€2,000 a year”. At the point I am writing this, we have only his word on it so far.
What he did fail to point out during his ‘extraordinary general conference’ yesterday morning was just how much we all stood to lose if his brinkmanship had blown up in his jolly face. Taking a bit of a risk there, wasn’t he?
Zarb told the people who gathered to listen to him yesterday that his union’s principles are not for sale. “Methods change over the years but our principles do not,” he said. And these principles would be….what exactly?
It would be nice if he were to elaborate and whip me out of the dark. From where I’m standing, it looks like a case of everyone’s methods changing over the years, because flexibility is essential to survival, but the GWU’s methods staying the same, and principles be damned.
Whether they’re dealing with an international conglomerate threatening to pull out of Malta, taking its export value and leaving behind a surge in unemployment, a whacked-out balance of trade and a recession, or dealing with a workshop that’s got 20 employees on the payroll, the union’s approach is the same: blinkered and short-termist.
It was entirely fitting that Zarb paid tribute to Sammy Meilaq when he rounded off his self-congratulatory epistle, describing him as “a special friend”. Oh, why am I not surprised?
It was just unfortunate that he happened to do so immediately after telling us that the GWU’s methods haven’t changed. That’s right: they’re still those of Sammy Meilaq.
MAMMA MIA, IT’S JASON AND SANDRO
The head cheese at Super One and the man facing trial for the attempted murder of yet another union leader ate lunch a deux at the Ta’ Xbiex restaurant Mamma Mia yesterday. They were in very close conversation.
You’d think the only way that Jason Micallef gets into his fabled white jeans is by staying off the carbs, but apparently not. Maybe the restaurant with its legendary-sized pasta portions was Sandro Chetcuti’s idea. He has to build up his strength.
While we’re on the subject, this is what I think about Manwel Mallia’s attempts at discrediting Anthony Samuel, a consultant at the general hospital, who examined Vince Farrugia and reported on his injuries, testifying in court a couple of days ago as to what those injuries were.
There are two of the three drivers of Labour’s Business Forum, one of them in the dock for attempted murder and the other defending him, and they question the credibility of others. They really do need a big mirror.
Perhaps Manwel Mallia has been mired in other people’s muck for so long as a criminal lawyer that he is no longer able to distinguish between serious misconduct that would have a consultant brought before his peers for discipline, and a bit of ‘u ejja, mhux xorta’ to help a friend.
He actually had the nerve to ask Samuel – in that archaic criminal lawyer fashion which suggests that he had indeed done so – whether he had inflated and exaggerated Farrugia’s injuries as a favour to his friends, Farrugia’s son and daughter. Mallia, again perhaps because he trawls through muck for a living, appears not to understand just how serious a slur this is. And in terms of credibility, it is akin to Anglu Farrugia’s ‘PN agents bought Labour votes’.
Mallia is spending far too much time with those people.
What next – is he now going to ask Vince Farrugia whether he cracked his own ribs to get at Sandro Chetcuti, or suggest that Farrugia rolled on the floor shouting ‘Ahhh! Ahhh!’ while Chetcuti sat five feet away in an easy-chair? You know, like children do when they want to get back at a sibling, pretending to be hit so that mummy rushes into the room and the other child gets the blame?
Mallia should stick to wearing red stretchy outfits and interesting spectacles at Labour Business Forum fundraisers. His glory days as a criminal lawyer are over if this is the best he can do.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
55 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I cannot think of anything more despicable than a criminal defence lawyer flippantly tainting the good name of an honest expert witness by intimating – without a shred of supporting evidence – that the witness is committing perjury and for no better reason than that of trying all means, fair or foul, to get his client off the hook no matter the harm to innocent third parties.
[Daphne – Thank you for pointing that out, Dr Saliba. It is precisely what I tried to say: that you really have to be mired in muck and be unable to distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not to suggest that a consultant of good standing has perjured himself and falsified medical documents. But looking at the kind of people Mallia has always mixed with, I am not surprised.]
How naive it is to think that a medical consultant be brought before his peers for discipline after falsely testifying on false medical documents in defence of a family friend! Fejn qieghdin tghixu? Hawnhekk l-affarijiet jibqghu ghaddejjin! Qajjimtuni kont ser niehu siesta!
[Daphne – FALSELY TESTIFYING? Are you insane, or do you belong to the Anglu Farrugia school of thought? When a patience is examined at the general hospital, everything is minutely documented. There was no need for Anthony Samuel to testify at all. He was there only to confirm that he examined Vince Farrugia and that the report was his.]
forgot to add … “unless it’s an important case” …
I am not referring to this case in particular. Also I am not insane. I said that if a case is not widely publicised like this one “important” (see my added phrase below) disciplinary action against a medical consultant will not happen as it will go unnoticed by any disciplinary body u l-qorti taghlaq ghajnejha forsi biex tnaqqas mill-kumplikazzjonijiet.
You have assumed that every testimony from a medical consultant is honest. It is not always the case especially when family friends are involved. I have proof of one case in particular.
In my opinion it is unethical for a medical consultant to examine and then issue medical reports of a family friend no matter how good his standing is. He should have referred his friend to another consultant if he knew that his reports are going to be presented in court as evidence. This would have eliminated this doubt. Taf int! Bhal ma jaghmlu l-Magistrati w l-Imhallfin.
[Daphne – Don’t be bloody ridiculous. When a seriously injured patient is taken in through Accident & Emergency Department of a general hospital, he or she is seen by the consultant on duty. It is taken as read that the consultant on duty is not going to fabricate a report. What was to stop somebody who didn’t know Farrugia from fabricating a report? Back in the days, the people who took bribes for anything and everything from a colour television to an import licence didn’t have a personal relationship with the person doing the bribing. They just took the money. Grow up. Honestly. And what do people do, who know all the consultants? Are they to be denied justice because of arseholes like Manwel Mallia?]
You are wrong. He is seen by a doctor on duty then referred to a consultant maybe days later. I will check about the days. You can ask for your friend consultant to examine you if you have contacts. Tahseb li taf imma ma tafx!
[Daphne – You really do have a problem, don’t you. I have used A & E several times, and know EXACTLY what the procedure is. When you present with broken bones, X-rays are taken there and then. X-rays cannot be falsified. The consultant might look at the X-rays a day later, but the X-rays are taken on admission. A consultant cannot falsify a report on broken bones because, as Anthony Samuel pointed out (though he didn’t need to) the report is based on incontrovertible evidence: X-rays. In other words, nobody could have possibly exaggerated the number of broken ribs or the nature of those fractures because it’s right there on what Sandro Chetcuti would no doubt call an extrain.]
Jien tiskantani xi kultant kemm tilghaba ta mara innocenti!
Dapfne, tifimnix hazin. M’ghandi l-ebda interess f’dan il-kaz. Iggieghelnix naqla l-files ha nurik ghax m’ghandix aptit imma nassigurak li l-affarijiet xi kultant ma jimxux kif timmagina li suppost ghandom jimxu.
I don’t give a damn about Sandro. What is presented in court is the report of the consultant. What backs that report is kept in hospital and can be easily manipulated, lost or deleeted. Yes the report can say that there are broken bones when it does not show on the x-ray. That is what I mean by false report! Want to bet? Int rasek iebsa!
[Daphne – If Manwel Mallia suspected that the X-rays had been ‘manipulated’ or lost, rest assured he would have asked for them to be examined in court.]
“What next – is he now going to ask Vince Farrugia whether he cracked his own ribs to get at Sandro Chetcuti, or suggest that Farrugia rolled on the floor shouting ‘Ahhh! Ahhh!’ while Chetcuti sat five feet away in an easy-chair?”
Shh… You’re giving them ideas…
This is what Minister Tonio Fenech said in an interview last Sunday: “I think the GWU has done a good job in negotiating the package, because I know what were the initial demands and what actually the Union has managed to secure with them still accepting to do the investment in Malta…if the Union has had the guts to do this (advise the workers to accept the package), I think it was for good reason.”
The GWU has been COMMENDED by the Government in this process.
And how should the Union have acted? Just meekly accepting all demands because ST is such a mighty giant? Is this what the PN has made out of employers’ rights? The good thing that the PN has rules Malta for so long is that the true nature of its mainstays is becoming so clear to everyone. There are many who would wish that unions disappear from the scene. Surely, the PN government in Thatcherite fashion has all but broken their back. But the events at ST show that not all is lost.
“Dr Mallia asked the doctor whether he was asked to inflate his findings of the injuries,” The Times 26th. July.
I wonder if Dr. Mallia expected the doctor to come out with an outright ‘Yes’. Dr. Mallia is losing his touch if he asked the question in the manner as reported in the newspaper.
[Daphne – He didn’t expect the doctor to say yes. Mallia still uses the archaic style of courtroom rhetoric which he learned from Guido de Marco. It was designed to impress jurors of a certain (low) level of intelligence through the power of suggestion. But without a jury, it just falls flat, and it doesn’t work on today’s sort of jurors anyway. It is totally out of date.]
What “touch”? I mean, am I the only one who thinks that Manuel Mallia always sucked at being a criminal (or any other kind) of lawyer? P-l-e-a-s-e.
Nice bunch!! Tony Zarb, Sandro Chetcuti, Manwel Mallia, and the cherry on the cake – Sammy Meilaq.
A defence lawyer clutching at straws and dirty ones for good measure. Brilliant !
I still can’t understand how people who have their jobs to lose insist on getting a pay-rise. I mean, if your job is on the line, if you know that it’s between having a raise and unemployment, seriously, how can you choose a raise? How can any responsible Union ask its own members to choose between improvement in their conditions and unemployment? Because there didn’t seem to be a middle way. I’m sure I’m missing something here but whenever I hear that people strike because they want a raise, (when the alternative is the employer to go out of business) or that people insist on higher wages when their employer can just pack up and leave, I really feel confused and awed. Genuinely – I’m not writing ironically.
But the managers dont get their salaries reduced, do they. They remain steady. Sacrifices are only for the employees. How’s that for consistency.
Biased writing as usual. You rightly criticise the GWU but you fall short in mentioning that the reason why employees voted the way they did the first time round was because of a false impression given by the Prime Minister and Tonio Fenech that the company was back on its feet again after concessions made by the government. Even Minister Fenech, very surprisingly I hasten to add, admitted this. In a bygone era you would have nailed Tonio Fenech for such a PR gaffe at such a crucial time. Yet you choose to criticise a lame duck such as the GWU. Puerile.
ST Micro leaving the island would not have an appreciable negative impact on Malta’s Balance of Trade or to describe it better, it’s net export balance. The reason for this is that ST Micro in Malta only adds a marginal amount of value to the final product before it is re-exported. There would, however be a real negative impact through the increase in the unemployment numbers by the 1500 individuals employed there, with a skill set that is not very easily transferable. ST Micro will eventually leave Malta, it is a consequence of globalisation. What should be done for the employees of ST Micro, is think ahead for what they could do when ST leaves, retraining should start now.
“…with a skill set that is not very easily transferable.”
Ah! That’s not what the engineers’ cartel running this country preaches. “Study engineering! Brilliant career guaranteed!’, they thunder.
Now the government minions wake up and find that, er, ST Micro will eventually relocate. And they’re shitting themselves.
A little real, no-frills advice amid the torrent of blue-skies bullshit does wonders when you’re in government.
ST Micro leaving the island would not have an appreciable negative impact on Malta’s Balance of Trade or to describe it better, it’s net export balance
very interesting.
ST Micro will eventually leave Malta
AMD (now globalfoundries) has invested in a new state-of-the-art foundry in Malta, New York. I doubt the wages there are as bad as ours. What GF loses in wages, they make up with tax breaks, loans, grants, stable bureaucracy and very, very cheap reliable energy. Not to mention access to one of the biggest markets and its government.
SG will leave mainly because government cannot invest too much in one sector and we have no land to put in a proper plant. Not to mention the energy problem etc…
I suspect that SG came here initially because the Italians insisted and the French begrudgingly obliged. The french would prefer to boost the economy of their ex colonies than Malta’s…
retraining should start now
Retraining to what exactly? Government already offers many part-time courses. Those that want and can take one are free to do it. We need more hi-tech manufacturing industry that is space efficient, research labs are not enough.
When is the effin power station coming online?! We need it yesterday.
ST has turned into one of those “too big to fail” businesses in Malta. In business, bigger is not always better – sometimes it just leads to Bigger Problems (may be abbreviated as BP). Recent experience shows that this is valid not only for individual companies (e.g. Lehman, AIG in the US), but also for specific industries, such as the financial services industry in the UK.
Whereas I do wish to sound like I am in favour of state intervention against growth or in any other form, policy makers can influence business growth – by incentivising diversification of investment into different products, sectors, markets etc.
Well said, Peter. You have a clear grasp of the economic reality that is ST. It’s net export balance is negligible. Its main contribution is to GDP and, as you say, it occupies 1500 employees, which is no joke.
The problem with this decision – and Daphne should have been impartial enough to mention it – is the precedent that has now been established: accept wage cuts – or else!
This means that those that work in manufacturing can now look forward to threats at collective agreement time. Remember that these are the only people, apart from those in tourism, who earn the country foreign currency and add real value (cf civil servants, teachers etc.) I have worked in manufacturing for over 30 years now and I know what I’m talking about.
In the long term, people will be put off working in manufacturing, where you cannot skive, where you are expected to increase productivity year-on-year and work in shifts. No one will do this for less money unless circumstances are truly exceptional.
Agreed. ST are here because of globalisation too. The writing on the wall is very clear – employees should not remain with their heads in the sand. It’s only a matter of time. One prays that the timing would not synch with the next elections as PL would have a field day.
If they have a skill set that is not easily transferable, it goes to show what a bunch of idiots we all were to believe that engineers were the lords of creation. There’s a part of me that wishes ST had closed down. It employs an artificially high number of people in one hermetically sealed sector. It would bring down our conceited Ings. a notch or two.
In my lingo it’s a case of the man judging people by his own standards. Punto e basta dottore.
Daphne, I have a different take on the tactics of the defence lawyer. In my opinion a criminal lawyer has to explore all legal, ethical and moral methods in the court room. That’s the beauty of a fair trial. So far from the reported news I read the defence didn’t violate these principles and I think the defense was correct in bring out the friendship between the doctor and Mr. Farrugia.
[Daphne – It is NEVER correct to impugn the character of a witness without just cause. Just cause does not mean getting your client off or getting him a lower sentence. Just cause means having evidence or an indication that the doctor did in fact do such a thing, not throwing out a wild accusation just for the sheer hell of it. Doing that to Anthony Samuel actually weakened his case because it makes him look desperate, clutching at straws.]
Likewise, I hope the prosecution is in a position to present witnesses that not only witnessed the vicious beating of Mr.Farrugia but other witnesses who were threatened and beaten in the past by Sandro. My gut feeling tells me that this man has a colourful violent past. I think the prosecution has an obligation to explore his past. It seems to me there is a pattern of this violent behaviour and it equally fair game for the prosecution to bring out in this trial.
I am hopeful the jury will find Sandro guilty of all charges. What bothers me is not the defence tactics but with the sentencing as I fear the judge will give him a lenient sentence.
Threatening someone with murder is a serious offence that deserves a minimum of 20 years jail time plus a heavy monetary fine.
Perhaps you will recall the Phoenicia Hotel saga.
and Sea Malta
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/12/feature/mt0512102f.htm
.Would you care to tell us more?
I cannot understand how people tend to forget completely events that at the time were vital.
Dear Lomax, who has demanded a rise in the ST case?
> Whether you sell cars, food or advertising, that kind of instant surge in unemployment will hit you hard.
I think that is very offensive to wage earners who find themselves between a rock and a hard place daph…
[Daphne – Why? They work for the people who sell things. All businesses sell something.]
Because for a business it is acceptable to sell something for €5 that cost it 20c from China. Businesses talk of risk. The risk is almost non existent for established businesses with money. They manipulate their environment to bar entry for competitors. A skilled labourer has no leverage whatsoever. A labourer, even a creative, will spend a lot of time learning a skill and then more time creating new IP yet they will earn peanuts because they have little leverage. Skilled health professionals are the only ones who can negotiate from a position of strength. You should be fighting for a stronger middle class, cause that’s where you are as well. Sometimes I suspect you are getting hoodwinked by the promise of future wealth to sell off cheaply the rest of us to the highest bidder…
You are promoting a culture where established businesses can do what they want as long as it’s superficially legal, yet everyone else has to suck it. That’s what’s destroying the middle class in the US.
Daph, in the US* wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the richest 1% to the point where it was before the great depression. Do you consider such a concentration of wealth to be healthy in a democracy?
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
A fresh example, take the Shirley Sherrod case in the US that is shaming conservatives as being the racist wealth grabbers they really are:
“Well, working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t. They could be black. They could be white. They could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people”
Made me read a bit on the history of the USDA, going against mandate to destroy the small farms owned by blacks (poor whites as well) facilitating the appropriation by the rich.
* I consider the US an indicator, as our local situation isn’t discussed properly and data is hard to come by, not to mention that no studies are published and interpreted in the media apart from some passing superficial comments… disgusting really.
NB: I wish local civil servants and honest ex-employees would write their memoirs somehow. We need a bloody good samaritan to fund a foundation that can research recent local history and write it down for posterity. Even if some things get time barred to protect the guilty.
Dr. Manwel Mallia is the best criminal lawyer of local and international fame. His track record running several years id proof of this. I am sure Dr. Mallia would not have asked those questions unless he has ‘good cause’. The case is not over yet. Time will tell. I hope Mrs. Caruana Galizia will then apologise to him for her prejudice and rush comments.
Daphne, you wish to have the intelligence of Dr. Mallia!!! He is a respected man by both Nationalists and Labourites. Are you? He has achieved so much success in his professional life? Have you? I can see that you do not know this man. You only dispise him because he no longer flies the ‘maduma’ flag. I admire him as he has the courage to do so.
Is Dr. Peter Paul Zammit the ex cop?
Daphne, how much jail time is Sandro is expected to receive? From past similar violent acts how did the judges rule on these cases?
[Daphne – God, I have no idea.]
You write the way you do about Dr. Mallia because you see your failure in his success. Why don’t you phone Dr. Mallia to teach him Criminal Law and the art of cross examination of witnesses!!!!!!
[Daphne – What a jolly good idea! Or should that be !!!!!!!!! He hasn’t a clue how to cross-examine witnesses like me (or Anthony Samuel). He’s accustomed to dealing only with the underclass, whose members he intimidates when they are cowed already because they are in court. He has no idea at all how to handle his intellectual equals and betters, particularly not when they are comfortable in the witness box, as I am. He made an absolute hash of cross-examining me, the one time he did so. It didn’t help that I have no time for Italianate porkers with a greaseball look who affect a Miss Pepsi accent, and that my impatience showed.]
Dr. Mallia’s days are over? Wishful thinking Daphne!!! Why don’t you tell your readers how in Meinrad’s case when he cross examined you he tore you to bits? You may have forgotten that Dr. Mallia won this case. Another feather in his cap. Come on Daphne GROW UP
[Daphne – He didn’t, actually, but rather the opposite. The prosecutor was overheard remarking in private how taken aback he was by the fact that I was several steps ahead of Manuel Mallia, and that at one point Mallia was quite obviously left floundering and looking through his notes to invent a question because I had preempted him and left him high and dry. It is very difficult to lead me down an alley, ‘Edward’. I think quickly and on my feet and I formulate thoughts and opinions concisely and clearly. And I am not at all intimided by a courtroom environment, which is a major asset. In short, I am an interrogating lawyer’s nightmare. And your friend Meinrad faced two trials not one: attempted murder and cocaine-trafficking. He was jailed for FIFTEEN YEARS for the latter, and the former was a case of what, in some jurisdictions, is considered ‘not proven’ rather than ‘not guilty’, so don’t push your luck. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to get excited about a convicted felon, but there you go. Friends in need, I suppose…]
For the record: Edward Sapiano DID NOT SAY any of the above. He has no knowledge of this discussion. It appears someone used his name, which they read somewhere, for their own comments.
Manwel Mallia should read To Kill A Mocking Bird
Would you care to tell us more?
Ooops! Sorry, but that was meant to be in reply to ‘red nose’.
You must be very young to ask for more – The Phoenicia and Sea Malta cases are very recent and you should know about them. If you are a 12-year old, I shall be pleased to oblige with Daphne’s good permission, of course
Daphne Daphne! Who knows who really needs a big mirror? I ask – why all these value judgments when a case is still open? As you said – ‘ It is Never correct to impugn… without just cause’ and ‘just cause … having evidence’ and ‘ not throwing out a wild accusation just for the sheer hell of it’. With all due respect, this is what you’ve been doing, being insular and one sided instead of being objective and rational, if I may say, when describing Dr. Emmanuel Mallia accusing him very imprudently. How thoughtless when saying –‘ Mallia is spending far too much time with those people!’ or that ‘he trawls through muck for a long time’ or that ‘his glory days… are over’!!! but who says so? On what evidence? You are so so incorrect. I have experienced having Dr. Mallia beside me defending us in a case of severe bodily injury, and I feel I cannot but speak great things about him. Had it not been for Mallia’s perseverance, remarkable integrity and exceptional quality in his profession we would have never ever seen justice. Altro che? That his glory days are over! He is really brilliant. May I suggest that freedom of speech is a good thing but should not be used in disparaging sense, made by personal whim rather than being independent.
[Daphne – Up to you, sugar. I found it pretty easy to preempt him and head off his line of questioning when I was a witness in quite a notorious trial, and I’m not especially bright. I could see him coming a mile off. I remember thinking at the time that he must have been accustomed to dealing only with village idiots or people who were cowed and frightened in the witness box. He came at me posturing with that Italianate rubbish and all I could think was ‘Jahasra, what a jerk.’ He can’t have a particularly high IQ not to have worked out that the tricks he used habitually on 25-year-old drug-dealers from Bormla or terrified housewives raised in the gutter were unlikely to work on me. But then obviously, he wouldn’t have a high IQ, would he, to have thrown his lot in with Labour’s ‘Business Forum’.]
Hi Daphne,
Did you read this?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100730/local/two-nationalist-mps-join-anti-divorce-facebook-group
It’s Franco Debono again, saying he doesn’t know if he joined the Anti-Divorce group on Facebook.
L-anqas jaf x’laqtu!
Nothing to do with the above. Hello there – James Tyrrell is back with his criticism of the Maltese government. See his letter in today’s The Times.
What glory days?
[Daphne – I was just being…..kind.]
Mallia’s antics remind me of a similar incident in which I was involved some years back. I was testifying under oath as an expert in a property case, and the defence lawyer – a Labour MP – asked me a similar sort of question.
He clearly implied that I had falsified evidence to please the other party. My reaction? I went totally berserk at the insinuation and called him a dirty clown and a man without principles, in front of the court officials. My outburst was so genuine that after 10 seconds of profound silence, the hearing was adjourned. So I fully understand how Dr.Samuel must be feeling. Shame on any lawyer who acts this way.
If it were true that the medical specialist was really testifying falsely on the basis of false medical documents he would have had to face perjury charges before the criminal court in addition to any procedures before the Medical Council.
The simple truth is that defence lawyers are often afforded undeserved freedom to impugn the honesty of innocent witnesses for no legitimate reason at all.
When that trick was tried twice on me, a court expert witness abroad, on both occasion the judge came down on the abusive defensive lawyer like a ton of bricks. But as I said already, that wasn’t in Malta.
“The simple truth is that defence lawyers are often afforded undeserved freedom to impugn the honesty of innocent witnesses for no legitimate reason at all.”
How very true. In Malta one gets the impression that all tactics by defence lawyers are legitimate.
You are wrong Dr Saliba. Not always! And Daphne censored my last reply.
[Daphne – I didn’t. I merely deleted it as is my right, so as not to render this comments section utterly boring through your endless repetition. You clearly have an axe to grind – not about this case, but about something you were involved in.]
I am no expert about the exact wording of our constitution but, if i remember right, there is somewhere a phrase that runs (more or less) like this : “every citizen has the right to a fair trial and to be represented in court by a lawyer who is, in duty bound, to defend his client to the very best of his ability”.
And somewhere else, probably in the criminal code (although I am not an expert) there is a phrase that should run something like “no citizen is deemed guilty of any crime unless deemed so by a court of law”.
May I ask Ms Caruana Galizia whether being a member of the press gives her the right to override these two very basic cornerstones of our justice system? Oh yes . . . I forgot .. . in these days of “trial by the press” those provisions have been deemed totally unnecessary and any two-bit reporter can sit on his/her chair and pronounce sentences having been appointed judge / jury / counsel for prosecution / counsel for defense all rolled into one.
Slinging mud is never a pretty picture and, as you yourself say, is about as low as you can get . . . but that also includes slinging mud against one of our country’s finest legal minds and, on a personal note, someone who has been recognised, to be a real gentleman !!!!!
@Michael Camilleri
I do not take your word for it.