Not fit for purpose
18 months to go and what you're looking at here is Judge Herrera and the Minister of Justice
This is my column in The Malta Independent today.
The Labour elves are out in force on the internet comments boards to defend the person they consider (deservedly) one of their own – Magistrate Scerri Herrera – and to denigrate the person they consider to be Public Enemy No. 1 – me.
That sort of thing only serves to remind me why Labour has managed to retain the support of around half the electorate no matter how low and shoddy its standards are.
Many of its supporters do not know that Labour is not fit for purpose because they don’t even know what that purpose might possibly be.
On Tuesday I testified under oath that Magistrate Scerri Herrera had had a long and secret adulterous affair with a police inspector, now superintendent, Dominic Micallef.
He had written her many letters, she had hidden those letters at a location other than her home so that her husband would not find them, and she left those letters there when she embarked on another adulterous affair, this time with Robert Musumeci, and then moved in with him.
I explained that the reason for the delay in her reaction to my blog-posts about her behaviour was not merely that she was in Singapore with another policeman looking into the murder of a sailor aboard a Malta-flagged vessel, but that she and Police Superintendent Dominic Micallef were trying to get hold of those letters before she filed a formal complaint and I was arrested.
They were worried that they might somehow find their way to me and that I would use them in court.
Once they got hold of the letters and Magistrate Scerri Herrera thought it was safe to do so, she put in a formal complaint with the Police Commissioner and I was arrested.
I returned from an evening out to find four policemen – the full squad complement they send to perform a difficult arrest – standing waiting at my gate at 1.30am, with a formal request to be at Police Headquarters at nine the following morning. This is called arrest by appointment.
The tragic thing is that I wasn’t surprised. We are all equal before the law, but if you or I or even the prime minister files a complaint about criminal defamation, the Police Commissioner is not going to send four policemen to stand and wait outside your door for half the night to get you for interrogation.
Those policemen had strict instructions not to leave until I turned up at home, and for all they knew I was away for the weekend.
You would have had to have a secret affair with a senior police officer to get that kind of special service- so much for the separation of powers, when a magistrate yelps and the police jump to obey because she’s got something on at least one of them and the rest don’t know it.
During interrogation, I was held under arrest for four to five hours and was not permitted to leave even after I had given my statement.
The police, while they held me, were trying to get hold of the owner of the company that hosts my website, to get details of the people who administer it (only me).
They told him that they had a person under arrest and would not let that person go until he told them what they wanted to know. He realised at once that I was the person under arrest and he gave them my name. Then they let me go.
Has that ever happened to me in 20 years of writing? No, it hasn’t. It did happen to me under Labour – natch – but that was another story. I have never found four policemen at my gate at 1.30am because of something I wrote about somebody. I have never seen the police under such pressure for a defamation suit, or in such a terrible panic.
The policemen at my gate behaved as though I had murdered someone and they themselves looked worried sick.
And that is the point that the Labour elves on the internet have missed. If the concrete wall that separates the police and the judiciary can break down with prejudice to one citizen, it can break down for anyone and at any time.
I am a public person and anything done to me is done in public. And yet still they do this. Imagine, then, what scope for abuse there is with people who are under the public parapet.
Here we have a situation where a police superintendent and a magistrate have something on each other and used their common interest in keeping their affair hidden to collude in removing ‘evidence’ in a case in which the magistrate is directly involved.
There are three reasons why the police superintendent and the magistrate wished to keep this hidden. They hadn’t told their spouses (obviously), they wished to conceal letters that they thought would help me defend my position, but beyond that, they know (he certainly does even if she does not) that it is a grave offence and serious breach of ethics for a prosecuting officer to conduct a clandestine relationship with a member of the judiciary.
The Labour elves think it is just another affair and that it is nobody else’s business. Because this magistrate is a sister to the man who will be justice minister in 18 months, they defend her dreadful behaviour and pretend to themselves that it is normal.
I can’t help saying this, but with true believers like that, no wonder the Labour Party gets such an easy ride while the Nationalist Party is tortured to death over the slightest misdemeanour.
They are clearly oblivious to the democratic requirement of the separation of powers, and completely in the dark as to why those powers must be separate.
They probably don’t even know what the powers at issue are, and might even think that the police and the judiciary are supposed to be part of the same ‘power’ and to work hand in hand.
The judiciary, the executive, the police, parliament and the media are the pillars of democracy. They must function independently of one another if democracy is to be kept safe.
We already have a grave situation in which the media does not act to scrutinise the judiciary because it is that same judiciary which then tries it in court on matters of defamation and libel, the net result being that certain magistrates and judges do exactly as they please.
Perhaps I had better spell it out. Clandestine affairs between senior-ranking police officers and members of the judiciary are not allowed in a properly functioning democracy because the potential for abuse is great.
This has been illustrated in my own case. Any relationship between a member of the judiciary and a police officer must be out in the open, above board and subject to scrutiny to ensure that there is no abuse of power.
But it is not only police officers who a magistrate cannot sleep with secretly. Any such secret affair is not permissible. I illustrated the reason why – for those who might think, childishly, that ‘it’s nobody business’ – under oath yesterday.
Faced with a case involving a family member or other close associate like an in-law, a magistrate is obliged to abstain in the interest of transparency in the administration of justice.
If a magistrate is sleeping in secret with the brother of the person in the dock before her, not only will she not feel the need to abstain (because others don’t know of the relationship) but she cannot abstain even if she wants to, because then she would have to give her reasons and reveal her adultery.
When Magistrate Scerri Herrera sat in judgement over Robert Musumeci’s brother Joseph, when he was prosecuted for theft, she did not abstain because her relationship with Robert was still a secret and neither of their spouses knew.
So Joseph Musumeci’s case was heard and judged by his brother’s lover.
Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s lawyer argued yesterday that the Attorney-General did not appeal against her judgement. I said to him that this is not the point. To suggest that it is all right for a magistrate to judge her lover’s brother as long as the judgement is within the law is patently absurd and runs contrary to the accepted norms of justice.
If you don’t think that’s disturbing, or deeply wrong, then it’s time for you to pack your bags and head for China. That kind of view is not liberal but its precise opposite. It is the denizens of totalitarian regimes who accept this kind of thing and think it normal.
50 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
How sad and worrying!
Daphne, you are fighting for the Rule of Law to be applied equally and fairly to all of us.
There can be no compromise on such an issue that is a cornerstone of our liberal democracy.
There can be no compromise upon how the relevant officers of the judiciary/police/politics carry out their duties in the application of the Rule of Law.
Many iniquities exist in our society because of the so called ‘Maltese way’ of keeping our mouths shut lest anyone hears us. This is not the Maltese way, but the way of cowards.
The real ‘Maltese way’ is to stand up and tell the truth irrespective of the odds against us.
Daphne, you are the Maltese way. I am sure that there are many more like you in our society, a society that has many people who know the difference between right and wrong. The truth always wins in the end.
“We are all equal before the law, but if you or I or even the prime minister files a complaint about criminal defamation, the Police Commissioner is not going to send four policemen to stand and wait outside your door for half the night to get you for interrogation.”
Let me tell you one thing: I know about police reports filed for crimes which were much, much worse than defamation and after months and months still nothing happened.
I know precisely what I’m saying.
Sometimes you have to threaten to publicise the case to get something moving, and even that “something” sometimes is so meager and miserable that you wonder why don’t more people take the law into their own hands.
No, we’re not equal before the law. I can tell you that much.
The police reaction in your case was not only disproportionate but totally unwarranted and abusive.
Which goes on to show that no we’re not equal before the law. Before the written law yes but before the law enforcers, we’re not.
I honestly believe and pray that if you do not get justice on this issue you go directly to the European Court of Justice with this case.
All this saga is so disgraceful both for the police but mostly for the courts of Malta.
Come on, Daphne. I am Labour but I don’t denigrate you or consider you public enemy number 1! :o)
I am actually more in agreement with you than other people on certain issues.
As the saying goes: You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
How could these things happen in a European Union country? Can’t you write to the European Commissioner for justice?
Was he here or abroad?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110907/opinion/Improve-the-coastline.383648
Well said, Daphne.
Where are the Labour media and Malta Today in all this?
It is not so long ago that they made mince-meat out of George Grech about his affair with a Polish woman, a private citizen and not a magistrate, and yelled out for his blood.
But now it’s OK since it is one of their own that is involved.
Let’s keep mum about it and just sweep it under the carpet.
Wonderful people to have in government in 18 months’ time.
And yet the person we have as Minister of Justice and the Commission of Judicial Review do nothing about this,.No wonder the Nationalists are going to be kicked out unceremonously come next election.
They are not fit for purpose as well.
This should NEVER have happened under their watch. Under Labour tifhima, such things are part of their DNA. Under the Nationalists pero?
Well said, Phoenix, where the heck is everyone? Imissna nisthu.
Daphne, we stand four square behind you.
Daphne, I fully agree with you that these actions and behaviour are totally unacceptable.
Nonetheless, while the magistrate and her brother are aligned to the Labour Party I still find that tolerating such actions is also a shortfall by the current government and the ministers and officials that should ensure that such does not happen.
[Daphne – I agree with you completely. I said towards the end of my testimony – not reported in the press – that the main reason I found myself in the dock after writing about these things is that the system of checks and balances which is supposed to prevent them happening has collapsed.]
I am Nationalist yet seeing these issues happening under a Nationalist government is in my opinion not right either.
It’s true that the magistrate would need 2/3 of parliament to be removed but police actions do not.
[Daphne – This is not about police action. The police become involved where there are alleged crimes. This whole issue is about MORALLY corrupt behaviour, unethical behaviour and undermining of confidence in the legal system.]
I agree fully with Daphne and with JPS.
According to Herrera, the government appealed a decision the European Court of Human Rights which said that a lawyer appearing before a judge who is a close relative is in breach of the European Convention.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110906/local/lawyer-decides-not-to-defend-cases-in-court-presided-by-his-sister.383589
Is this correct? Who was the minister responsible for taking the decision to appeal?
What about the Commission of Justice? What about our politicians, both PN and PL? This unethical behaviour seemed to be common practice and yet nobody uttered a word.
Well done to Daphne for bringing this to the public attention.
[Daphne – Unfortunately, the mess is compounded by the fact that the ECHR judgement referred to the Mifsud Bonnici family of lawyers, and one of them is the minister of justice, so of course the decision was appealed. I absolutely cannot stand this sort of thing.]
I see nothing wrong with a family picture, only he had the shirt buttoned-up.
Daphne
I think this story about a drunken elk would be of interest to you, it hit the first place on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14842999
The only connection I can see between an elk and the magistrate is that this particular animal is recognised as one of the most highly copulative in the animal kingdom.
I’m certain I saw this pic on a, subsequently vanished, facebook site. Think it was taken at some magistrate’s party. Cows and elk are know to associate, I understand.
Exactly so.
Din hi rokna ghal-Laburisti ta’ Rieda Tajba.
Nies tal-affari taghhom li jemmnu fil-Klassi tal-Haddiema u fl-ideali tal-gustizzja socjali.
Lil dawn i-nies nixtieq nistaqsihom kif ihossuhom b’nies bhal Jose’ Herrera jcappsu isem il-Partit Laburista.
Meta wiehed jgharbel lil Jose’ Herrera, xi jsib? Isib avukat li mhux gej minn familja tal-haddiema, imma avukat li gej minn familja li, filwaqt li l-poplu kien jghix fil-faqar, huma kellhom jott u Mercedes.
Dr Herrera dejjem jiftahar kemm kien imlahhaq u importanti missieru. Qatt ma ftahar li gie minn familja taqlaghha u tikolha u li wasal fejn wasal bl-gharaq ta’ gbinu.
Huwa avukat, Dr Herrera, li bena l-karriera tieghu anki billi hareg ghall-politika mal-Partit Laburista.
Qatt smajnieh lil Dr Herrera jitkellem favur il-klassi tal-haddiema?
Qatt smajnieh jissimpatizza mat-tbatija tal-haddiema, taz-zghir, tal-batut, tal-fqir, tal-emarginat?
Li niftakruh zgur lil Dr Herrera hu waqt il-kampanja ghad-Deputy Leader, meta beda jghid lid-delegati li biex tkun fil-pulitka jrid ikollok il-flus u hu ghandu hafna flus.
Kif ghamilhom dal-flus? Bicca minnhom minn tal-familja. Il-bicca l-ohra billi sar maghruf bis-sahha tal-Partit.
Jigifieri, Herrera dejjem ha minghand il-Partit. Bhalma hadet ohtu, li kif tela’ l-Partit fil-Gvern Gorg Abela hadmilha biex saret Magistrat.
X’ha l-Partit mill-Magistrat Herrera? S’issa inkwiet biss, ghax qed iggib l-istmerrija ta’ kulmin hu ta’ rieda tajba fuq il-Partit.
Gorg Abela x’tah lill-Partit? Firda u telfa.
Ghaliex il-Partit ghandu jissogra jitlef l-elezzjoni biex jaqbez ghal dan? Ghaliex ma jwarrbux, kif warrab lil ohrajn, Kunsullieri perezempju u hut iehor zghir?
Il-Partit Laburista m’ghandux x’jambih lil Herrera. Aktar ma jehles minnu malajr, aktar jikbrulu c-cansijiet li jirbah l-elezzjoni.
Il-Laburisti xi jridu? Li Herrera jibqa’ fil-Parlament u ohtu tibqa’ Magistrat, jew li l-Partit taghhom jitla’ fil-Gvern?
Dik il-mistoqsija li kull Laburist tal-affari tieghu, ta’ rieda tajba ghandu jipprova jsibilha risposta sinciera.
L-ahhar li rajt lil Herrera jitmashan kien meta l-gvern ta’ GonziPN tarraf li se jati l-berths tal-jottijiet lil-privat. Ghandu l-jott hemm, u jhallas bis-soldi. X’ma jitmashanx!
Has Herrera – the Workers’ Champion – got a yacht?
Nivvota Labour?
*NZ*BB*B
Rajtek kemm inti bravu.
@Daphne
Do you have a political agenda when targeting Herrera. How about tghamel ricerka u tfittex pics ta ex ministru m. falzon juri subajh lejn il camera. jew lil pullicinu fil bahar. jew lil saliba fuq xi jott. jew per ezempju lil fenech meta mar btala ma xi kuntrattur. give a break daphne. the more you push your political agenda more and more pn will keep shifting left. kif ghamilt jien. ex pn.
@ ray spiteri
you are as much ‘ex pn’ as I am ‘ex pl delegate’
This gets complicated now and a nuisance to report anything about this magistrate.
I mean, by the looks of it, is she going to be known as Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Micallef Musumeci Herrera? Have I missed another name or two?
One hopes that with divorce coming soon some of these names will drop off?
If I had much hair left, I would tear some off.
A question: Can a person summoned by the Police to appear before the Courts, declare that he has no confidence in a certain Magistrate and ask to be heared by some other magistrate?
“And that is the point that the Labour elves on the internet have missed. If the concrete wall that separates the police and the judiciary can break down with prejudice to one citizen, it can break down for anyone and at any time. ”
You don’t really expect those morons to understand that now, do you, or miss the chance at hitting out at the ballsy journalist who exposed this travesty of justice?
In the meantime I wonder if someone can explain this to me. In the Arrigo and Vella cases, the prime minister of the day had lost no time in calling a press conference that got the ball rolling. What is stopping the present prime minister from doing the same in this case?
[Daphne – Arrigo and Vella stood accused of a criminal act.]
You should get official thanks for unmasking these goings-on, that , from their very nature are everybody’s business.
I thought perjury was a criminal act.
[Daphne – A decision on whether a witness can be prosecuted for perjury is only taken at the end of proceedings.]
@Ms DCG, but what about what are perceived as RAMPANT conflicts of interest in the administration of justice? Judging by what has been revealed publicly so far, il-qrati ta Malta qed jithallew isiru burdell.
Leafing – clicking? – through Lou Bondi’s blog I came across a post – I forget which – that gave me the impression that Lorry Sant, god rest his soul, was kicked out of the MLP.
How does that story go?
… erm … I asked you, Ms Caruana Galizia, because you have proven yourself to be a reliable source of this sort of information.
[Daphne – Sorry, I’m in a bit of a rush. Lorry Sant wasn’t removed from the Labour Party, but was suspended in 1990. He remained an MP, of course. Shortly after Alfred Sant was made leader in 1992, Lorry Sant was diagnosed with cancer (the two facts are not related) and died in 1995, at the fairly early age of 57, though certainly not soon enough for many people. You might find this interesting. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101012/local/20-years-on-court-finds-that-lorry-sant-violated-human-rights.330898%5D
For the Spiteri chap above: It is now becoming a bit clear, that your shift to PL was due to the fact that you had a favour which could not be fulfilled by the PN.
As for saying that Daphne has a agenda, it is also apparent that you do not follow her reasoning. What agenda? She takes it out on everybody that is seen to be lacking. For this we owe her a debt.
Was there ever a case on which Magistrate Herrera sat with Inspector Dominic Micallef prosecuting and Jose defending?
These people have given the expression ‘scum of the earth’ new parameters.
[Daphne – That would have been interesting.]
Home-made justice.
“The Times
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Handled stolen goods
A 35-year-old man was yesterday jailed for 18 months for handling stolen property.
Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera found Joseph Cini guilty of handling Lm285 worth of stolen property on and before March 7, 1999, relapsing and breaching the conditions of a previous release.
The magistrate heard how Oliver Navarro’s Madliena house had been burgled in February 1999 and the following month Navarro saw Cini selling some of his stolen belongings at Ir-Razzett Tal-Hbiberija.
Police Inspector Dominic Micallef prosecuted.”
And the court expert was Robert Musumeci?
It wouldn’t have meant anything. She was sleeping with Micallef at the time. She began her affair with Robert Musumeci in 2007.
Follow the thread Doreen. My comment was not to maryanne.
Well said red nose,
Daphne’s agenda is very simple, she speaks her mind.
Is it a coincidence that when the subject happens to be a Labour MP, or some other character from Mile End, an influx of spiteful comments ensues?
When will they learn that people are judged by their actions?
That the criticism itself implies the person’s freedom to dignity.
Or is Labour a code of ethics all to itself?
Being attacked and insulted by the Mile End trogolodytes is a compliment.
Keep up the good Daphne!
Seems like John Dalli is up for some fun…
http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/pam-anderson-tells-dalli-not-to-set-clock-back-on-animal-tested-cosmetics
What has happened to this case?
http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/02/27/t2.html
It seems to me that you will lose this case IN MALTA.
I hope that you will go all the way to the European Court. Maybe thanks to you in Malta we will have a true democracy in the distant future as this seems to drag on for years.
Also Europe will find out what a kind of society we have here and maybe will be our safeguard. Many of us voted for entry in Europe with these reasons in mind.
“They probably don’t even know what the powers at issue are, and might even think that the police and the judiciary are supposed to be part of the same ‘power’ and to work hand in hand.”
Clearly (if all this is true) some individuals within the police and the judiciary are using other organs apart from their hands to be part of the same ‘power’.
Despicable and digusting to have the guts to pass judgement when you are brewing your own poison.
Good luck Ms. Caruana Galizia. May the truth and nothing but the truth prevail!
Silvio Farrugia, I can’t see what you mean when you write “you WILL lose the case in Malta.’
Up to now, Daphne’s testimony has not been seriously challenged. The magistrate’s lawyer and the prosecution seem to be unable to confute Daphne’s straight, plain and truthful statements.
The more I think about this whole story the more upset I feel.
These things are happening under a PN administration. Let alone what will happen when everything is them, basically, when, these people become the Alpha and the Omega of everything.
But the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs has done nothing?
Another thing: if these people do not feel ashamed of doing these things in the open, min jaf kemm ihawdu minn taht.
The more I think about it the more disquieted I feel.
Lomax,
jippruvaw ihawdu minn taht.
L-ajru ghandu ghajnu u l-hajt ghandu widintu.
Jozef, in Malta many eyes are closed and many ears are deaf, and, worst of all, most mouths are dumb.