CORRUPTION AND ABUSE UPDATE: Emmanuel Mallia & Associates force illegal arraignment of Birdlife activists on behalf of their hunters association client/Magistrate erupts in fury
In the news again this morning with another big scandal. SACK HIM NOW.
The court erupted into chaos and the magistrate blew his top this morning, calling the situation a “pantomime”, when Birdlife activists were arraigned for having dead and injured protected birds in their possession.
The prosecuting officer himself told the magistrate that he couldn’t prosecute them because they had no criminal intent and there were no charges that could be properly brought against them.
They only had those birds because it is their job to care for them when they are injured, and to collect dead ones for reporting purposes.
The prosecuting officer, Police Superintendent Ramon Mercieca, described how members of the hunters association filed report after report with the police against the Birdlife people demanding that they be prosecuted.
The hunters’ lawyer, he said, repeatedly asked him, when she met him in court, when he was going to take action. Finally, the hunters’ lawyers filed a formal challenge against the Police Commissioner in court, and the matter was forced.
The newspapers are focusing on the hunters’ lobby lawyer who was mentioned by name in court this morning. What they haven’t realised yet is something everybody needs to know: that Kathleen Grima works for the firm Emmanuel Mallia & Associates.
The hunters association lawyer is not one woman called Kathleen Grima, but Emmanuel Mallia & Associates. Kathleen Grima is just part of that office.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-11-25/local-news/Magistrate-blasts-pantomime-hearing-as-Birdlife-activists-charged-with-being-in-possession-of-bird-6736126328
Undertakers beware !
Maffia & Associates indeed.
Ghal BLA KONDIXIN TAJBA DIN.
I wonder what Emmanuel Mallia & Associates entry in Chambers and Partners will be next year.
Band 1: Criminal/Corruption – Malta
For Magistrate Vella to lose it, it really takes something.
It seems to me that this country has turned into a large pantomime stage.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140503/local/Mallia-no-conflict-of-interest-over-law-firm.517392
‘SACK HIM NOW.’
Leave him there. This is our ticket into a shorter stay in Opposition.
Imma kif dejjem ex-Nazzjonalist irid ikun biex ifotti gvern. (Hlief Mintoff)
Mhux biss ex-Nazzjonalisti, imma t-tnejn “top criminal lawyers,” u t-tnejn tradituri. Insomma, f’dak il-kaz anke Mintoff kien “traditur.”
Kemm qedin tajjeb hux Cicc?
A lawyer acts on instructions from his clients.
Therefore how can a lawyer be blamed for taking action at request of his clients?
Besides, in this case, the Magistrates Court itself ordered this prosecution. Therefore Magistrates Court, you must take up arms against the other Magistrates court.
[Daphne – David, for your own sake please do your best to understand abstract concepts.]
Has all sense of propriety and decent behaviour been lost in our country?
Fine legalistic points and arguments have nothing to do with justice, and still less with decency.
Sometimes I love the way these guys take the piss out of the system.
There is a hole in the bucket, dear Joseph, dear Joseph. A hole, and a big one for that matter. It is so big that Minister Mallia thinks he can go in and out of the bucket as he pleases.
YOUR TIME IS UP, DEAR MINISTER. You think that the Maltese are CWIEC. FORGET IT….TIME TO GO. And ALL the troupe of this pantomime.
Just because there was a ‘challenge’ does not mean the police were obliged to take action. They should have let them take their ‘challenge’ to the higher courts and make a fool of themselves.
Kevin, you should know better, once a magistrate orders charging a person especially through Challenge Proceedings there is no Appeal. The Police have to act and charge a person, else they will be in direct contempt of court. Not a pleasant situation to find oneself in as you well know.
[Daphne – Well actually, Kevin is right here and you are wrong. The magistrate (not Vella) should never have accepted the challenge. He should have thrown it out. There was no legal basis for accepting it, and every legal basis for not accepting it. It has become a habit for the police and the court of justice to play fast and loose with people’s lives. To be on the ‘safe side’ themselves as individuals, they put the very people whose rights they are supposed to protect through hell – precisely because they see them as numbers and cogs in the wheel, not people.]
Daphne, pls do not confuse legal basis with moral or ethical basis. Legalese being what it is will not at challenge proceedings level go into moral or ethical issues since the Challenge Proceedings are one of the few proceedings available to an injured party to force the police to redress their complaint in full face of police legal powers.
This is one of the few safeguards in face of the right to decide on prosecuting a case, and like all systems it is not perfect and may be stretched to accommodate the ‘good’ (tongue in cheek lest I be misinterpreted) lawyer’s clients as was apparently done in this case…
On the moral and ethical ground Magistrate Vella is well known for his quick grasp of a situation and his no nonsense approach, and quite often he lambasts those that appear to obfuscate the issues on either side of the legal divide, prosecution, defence or parte civile nothwitstanding.
This is also the price we’re paying for a flawed approach to education where everything is taken at face value. Logic vs education, responsibility vs power, etc.
I bet this year’s panto writers are struggling to keep up with everything that’s going on and they’ll probably still be updating their scripts as the first actors step on stage.
They were prosecuted for the wrong reason. They were prosecuted to tarnish the credibility of our beloved Police Force.
They have been prosecuted for reporting the commission of a crime.
They have been prosecuted for nothing less than political interference in the course of justice.
Shame on you Minister you would certainly not have had it your way in the days of the late Commissioner De Grey and Commissioner Alfred Bencini.
They would have stood up to you and would have told you what to interfere and meddle with. Shame, Minister. Never did I expect as much of you. I thought I knew you better. Shame on you.