I suspect that most assault on the police is provoked by the police themselves with heavy handedness and arrogance. The police do not know how to diffuse a potentially explosive situation, they become too emotional and lose their temper. This is not the way to operate. A smile and a tap on someone’s shoulder could diffuse most disputes.

A former police office, who clearly has kept abreast with changes in the law at least as far as police powers are concerned, has drawn my attention to a provision of the Criminal Code, introduced a few years back, which does appear to create an obligation to attend at a police station to give information to the police. This is section 355AD of the Criminal Code, which I reproduce hereunder from the Ministry of Justice website:

“(1) Where, in the course of an investigation, a person attends voluntarily at, or accompanies a police officer to, a police station or office, that person shall be free to leave at any time, unless and until he is informed that he is under arrest.

“(2) Where an inspector of Police has a reasonable suspicion that the person who attended voluntarily at the police station or office may have committed an offence subject to imprisonment, he may arrest such person forthwith without warrant and inform him accordingly. The time of the arrest shall be immediately recorded and immediate notice thereof shall be given to a Magistrate.

“(3) The Police may, orally or by a notice in writing, require any person to attend at the police station or other place indicated by them to give such information and to produce such documents as the Police may require and if that person so attends at the police station or place indicated to him he shall be deemed to have attended that police station or other place voluntarily. The written notice referred to in this subarticle shall contain a warning of the consequences of failure to comply, as are mentioned in subarticle (5).

“(4) Any person who is considered by the police to be in possession of any information or document relevant to any investigation has a legal obligation to comply with a request from the police to attend at a police station to give as required any such information or document: Provided that no person is bound to supply any information or document which tends to incriminate him.

“(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice in writing as is referred to in subarticle (3) or who fails, upon being so requested, even if only orally, to accompany voluntarily a police officer to a police station or other place indicated by the police officer for any purpose mentioned in the said subarticle (3) shall be guilty of a contravention punishable with detention and shall be liable to be arrested immediately under warrant.

“(6) The notice mentioned in subarticle (3) may be served with urgency in cases where the interests of justice so require.

“(7) A person who attends voluntarily as mentioned in subarticle (3) may be kept apart from any other person, but shall not be kept in any place normally used for the detention of arrested persons.”

The interesting provision is subsection (5) – for some reason “sections” have become “articles” and “subsections” are now “subarticles”.

This subsection seems to create the offence only of failing to comply with the requirement of attending at a police station or other place, or of failing to accompany a police officer to such station or other place (hence the reference in subsection (5) only to subsection (3)), but not also of failing to provide the information mentioned in subsection (4).

If the police really want the co-operation of potential witnesses, they would be well advised to use kid gloves and not the sledge hammer with such witnesses. A potential witness who is threatened with detention upon conviction and with “immediate arrest under warrant” (how can an arrest be “immediate” and yet require a warrant?) is hardly likely to be very forthcoming with information.

The police must learn that co-operation from the public comes only with the public’s trust in the Police Force; such co-operation can never be rammed down one’s throat through threats or intimidation.

It is easy to see, however, how the provisions of this section can be used by the police to harass people. Caveat curia. Again, would some lawyer care to clarify or confirm?

If it is his duty to call on a person to ask questions he has to go the person.

If the person refuses to go to the policeman it is not licit for the officer to proceed to arrest UNLESS the officer has true (not fabricated, invented) strong valid reason to suspect that the person to be arrested is either the perpetrator of a crime or an accomplice.

A citizen has the right to TELL any police officer to call on him if the officer wants to talk to him, unless the person is put under arrest for a legal and just cause.

I quote the notorious “journalists` case”. I and Anglu Farrugia then serving with me at the CID were called by Lawrence Pullicino then commissioner. He gave us an order to arrest journalists for interrogation and investigation.

I pointed out that journalists were not to be arrested, only to be faced by the four legs to my chest and a litany of blasphemy and raging threats.

On leaving the office I made it clear to Anglu Farrugia that I was going as always, by the book. To which Anglu agreed. Being his senior I told Anglu to not only verbally but literally invite any of the journalists to our offices.

We split the work load as we had more than one journalist to deal with. I remember that on calling on one of the journalists, I was informed that he was expecting guests and that my presence might have embarrassed him.

I offered to interview him at my office or any other place he would point out. He asked if I would convey him to headquarters and back. Agreed. We went into the office, spoke for about three quarters of an hour and no sooner had the conversation ended than he was on his way.

The same treatment was given to the other journalists I interviewed. One in particular, pertaining to a political newspaper, objected and kept saying that Anglu had arrested him.

I did notice a bit of political overtone in it and in fact the next few weeks we became the headlines and the topic of public meetings.

The crux of the matter came when the most learned and revered Dr Demarco at a public meeting in Qormi opted to quote the incident and the “arrest” of the journalists.

We, the police, for we could not act on our own steam, filed libel. The hearing was one of the most correct procedures under the chair of Magistrate John Anastasi. It was resolved that there was no arrest effected by us.

In his most courteous of manners, respect and appreication Dr Demarco congratulated us for our correctness, our loyalty to the Force and our duties and the laws of the land in spite of him being the “accused” and we the prosecution.

There is case-law about this: if any police officer wants to talk to someone it is his duty to proceed to that person and not summon the person to the station.

You may wish to lay off the happy weed for a few days.

The point being made here is not to outright disobey all lawful orders but to resist the obvious abusive requests. For example, enforcement of data protection laws IS NOT a police competence. So any police officer claiming to the contrary is clearly trying to intimidate.

The courts tend to presume police decisions as being legitimate unless proved to be otherwise, since if everyone were free to disobey police orders, chaos would reign.

Reliable sources tell me that lecturers swear in front of the new recruits during lectures at the Ta’ Kandja police academy .