Isn’ this a form of blackmail? Why is it allowed in court procedures?

Because, dear chavsRus, the lawyer is not mentioned in the decree given by the Court! It is the client who is mentioned!

This is basic knowledge.

It is also why Daphne replied, “Why would it?” Meaning: why should the lawyer’s name appear?

[Daphne – Yes, well done, Jacques. I would have written exactly the same thing myself had I not been out all day today, at a party where Joseph Muscat’s medical condition manifested itself once more: he sent Toni Abela in his stead, when the prime minister took time out after yesterday’s stressful events and was not only there, but there on time.]

Huh…. because she isn’t involved at all…

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100924/local/justyne-caruana-says-she-was-not-involved-in-procedures-which-led-to-chris-saids-resignation

[Daphne – Guess it took her the best part of a day and night to work out how to frame that. Half truths are worse than lies. Shame we can’t get her for perjury because she didn’t take an oath before sending out that statement to the press.]

Maybe he did.

However, after reading Justice Mallia’s decision, I understand it that he had no choice other than to decide as he did because of a procedural error made by the Gozo magistrate.

Apparently, once the magistrate decided that there was a ‘prima facie’ case, his duty was to pass this on to the Commissioner of Police and not decide on its merit himself.

If the Gozo magistrate was right or not in deciding that there was a ‘prima facie’ case of perjury, when it seems so clear that it’s a mistake caused by a faulty memory, is the question.

I am all for transparency and the law being equal for everyone but so often, as the saying goes, ‘the law is an ass’ and innocent people get hurt even when justice is (hopefully) done in the end.

Silly – Justyne Caruana has not done anything except carry our her client’s instructions.

Another damp squib.

[Daphne – I couldn’t have made a better observation about her myself. Well done.]

It is a check and balance mechanism over police powers and the issue is whether, on a first look (prima facie) there are indications that a prosecution should take place.

The judge correctly said that the court of challenge is not and cannot decide the guilt or not of the person still to be accused.

The case should be heard this weekend.

When the very fabric of the state is threatened, the national interest demands that matters are sorted out very fast.

The reasons are compelling. It is the duty of the head of the executive to ascertain that this principle is upheld.