a) “The magistrate allowed him to travel within Europe only but denied him to stay out between midnight and 6am.” How exactly is the court going to ascertain this?

b) “On the request for travelling permission, Dr Gatt, said that it is impossible that Mr Chetcuti flees Malta because his family and his assets are based in Malta.” Impossible? First of all it could very well be that only a small part of his assets are in Malta, Secondly his family could easily travel and nobody could stop them because they are innocent and thirdly i cannot understand the reasoning if there is enough evidence to have imposed these conditions then these should only be eased if and when there is enough proof to the contrary. And finally when faced with either imprisonment or the ferrari many would quickly choose freedom so assets have very little value in themselves however valuable they might seem.

c) “The court agreed with this point but insisted that the accused should inform the prosecution with his travel itinerary and has to be in Malta when his hearings are due.” What use is this? I can supply an itinerary and have a second one up my sleeve. All it takes is a flight to a rogue country.

U iva we tweak the code of ethics a bit! This is a government which not only does not have a road map, but more importantly, it does not have any principles.

Disgusting.

This is required since the prime minister’s ministers seem to not know which actions are on and which are not.