Somebody has brought it up at last: this is about perverting the course of justice, which is a serious crime
Posted by Louis Amato-Gauci:
The only possible distinction between a political cover-up and any other kind of cover-up is motive, which is totally irrelevant in the course of a criminal prosecution, except perhaps at the time of sentencing, after a finding of guilt.
In this case, there could have been several different motives at play. Each actor in this drama may have had his or her own personal motive, and those personal motives may have shifted over time as the events of November 19 unfolded.
In no particular order, possible motives may have included the following: protecting Sheehan from prosecution; positioning Sheehan as the hero who saved the day; protecting Mallia from prosecution or political fallout; shifting all the blame onto a convenient fall-guy; concealing a network of ongoing illicit activity involving any number of public servants; concealing a pre-existing relationship between Smith and Sheehan, or between Smith and Mallia, or between Smith and other members of the police force; protecting the government’s reputation; protecting the reputation of the police force; protecting the Acting Commissioner’s personal reputation; or perhaps concealing some unknown “twist” in Mallia’s family arrangement.
No doubt there are other possible motives. All are irrelevant. There is no first, second or third degree to the offences of perverting the course of justice, tampering with or spoliation of evidence, or subverting due process.
It is equally possible that some of the perpetrators were unwitting dupes in this holy mess. In other words, the dupes never formed criminal intent, but were too foolish to realize that they were being used for nefarious purposes. While this may serve as a defence for any innocent bystander, it is simply not enough to exculpate the Prime Minister, or Kurt Farrugia, or the Acting Police Commissioner, or any of the senior police officers who attended at the crime scene and failed to take steps to prevent its further contamination, or indeed any of the other politicians or public servants involved, whether by act or omission, in formulating and implementing this cover-up.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The truth or the proof.
Excellent. So is there any way in which the guilty parties can be brought to justice?
I’m The People vs. The Government of Malta here.
In what we discussed, I mentioned that if it was possible to apply one law, as an example, why wouldn’t it already have been done by the legal minds. You mentioned it was because nobody had tried it.
Next step.
Perhaps the NP could simplify the procedure by placing a lawyer at the disposition of The People for such an initiative, and we could have a suit, a number of suits, crowd-funded suits on the points that we feel should apply from the Constitution/ laws.
It would be a hell of a challenge. It entails making the case against the entire government, by a citizen or group of private citizens, for a criminal offence, not a civil suit.
At this point I think I should make a public retraction of any nasty things I said about Giovanni Bonello regarding the “de Vallette” controversy. I’m ready to accept his version if he will help us, the people, in this. Gerald Strickland is long gone, or I would have appealed to him too. I can’t think of anyone else.
In a functioning democracy, where the police are an independent force and not a farce, this would be investigated by their criminal investigation unit.
If the Prime Minister wants to gain the people’s trust again, he should give Michael Cassar a free hand to deal with it without interference and hand in all the evidence it has available. Tall order, it may be, but worth considering.
[Daphne – The prime minister does not ‘give’ the police commissioner a ‘free hand’ to investigate. The police commissioner, under our Constitution and the law of the land, does not take orders from the prime minister or anyone else on who and what to investigate and when. Any police commissioner who fails to investigate a crime or fails to act on investigations which show that a crime has been committed is 100% accountable for those decisions and cannot cite superior orders because he has no superior.]
I mentioned this days ago. The intent of all this was obvious, but as usual, things in Malta are taken lightly.
Mallia decided to become a Labour candidate because Muscat promised to make him the Minister of Justice. Now what is Mallia to do?
Mallia hasn’t been minister of justice for a while.
It is not the ministry per se that interests him but the power and influence that pertain to it.
There are other ways of ensuring power and influence. Mallia hasn’t been dismissed outright.
He hasn’t been dismissed at all. Muscat has already said that he will pop up again shortly.
Well think about this: with Mallia out of office, he can always be Sheenan’s attorney now.
And Smith’s, as well.
“In other words, the dupes never formed criminal intent, but were too foolish to realize that they were being used for nefarious purposes”- Very much to the point and eye-opening comment.
Great post.
Daphne, I can only assume you are still running this story because you believe it was a cover up.
What about the on site inquiry by the magistrate and her findings.
What about the video?
What about a profile on Steve Smith (we know nothing about this guy).
What about all the other stories, some of which you even started to write about. The truth is there it just keeps on moving from one place to another.
I wonder whether Joseph Muscat spared a thought for Manwel Mallia’s little daughter.
What Manwel Mallia brought upon himself is one thing, what Joseph Muscat fails to do is another.
That girl has no blame.
This event is going to affect this girl for ever.
I can’t help thinking that she has been short changed even more than the nation has.
If this is really a serious crime, why did the three learned retired not say anything about this?
[Daphne – Your guess is as good as mine, and you are a lawyer, David (so is Louis above, as it happens), so you should know that perverting the course of justice is indeed a very serious crime.]
Because it wasn’t in the terms of reference for the inquiry, David.
That’s why the inquiry was a charade. The natural question is then to ask who ordered the inquiry and who set the terms of reference.
And once again, all paths lead to him, the family man, the beloved leader who’s been gorging at the trough these last 21 months, the Prime Minister of Malta.
Is he involved with Sheehan, Smith or Mallia? Is someone he knows involved? Is it Shiv Nair? Is it the Libyans? Is it the Chinese?
I’m deliberately laying all hypotheses out for discussion here, because it really could be anything. Given the few tips of the iceberg that have emerged since Joseph Muscat seized power (for I call things by their proper name), there is a murky tangle down there, the likes of which we’ve never seen, and whose extent we will probably never comprehend.
Shiv Nair was seen to have interceded with both the Chinese and the Libyans.
“Joseph Muscat seized power”
I think there needs to be a deep unswerving recognition of this fact.
There was nothing proper to the seizing.
Misrepresentation, lies and corrupt dealings were and are before our eyes.
It’s time action is taken that includes the full extent of this scam.
The Constitution DOES PROVIDE for all actions undertaken to need to respect democracy, in intent and deed, and not undermine it.
And Qatar too.
Neither was it in the terms of reference for the Gang of Three to pass comments about those who passed comments about them, but they had to, didn’t they?
And by default for the Libyans (?) also Russia and the Ukraine.
I certainly disapprove any perversions of the course of justice. However to my knowledge and maybe also to the knowledge of the learned judges, there is no crime of perverting the course of justice in Malta and I know of no such criminal procedures ever being taken in Malta.
There are related offences as false testimony for example, however this is not the issue here.
I do not know Louis Amato-Gauci, however apparently he practices law outside Malta.
I hate to split hairs, David, but the issue here was whether a “cover-up” had been perpetrated, and I don’t believe that particular term is used in the Criminal Code either. Still, we all understand what it means.
Don’t complicate matters. It’s just a question of mindset. It’s when the ‘siehbi’ culture meets the ‘thin-blue-line’ mentality.
“Sheehan mhux tifel hazin, miskin, u Smith haqqu ghax mill-keshin… nizzel ‘warning shots’, tinstema ahjar… zid ‘fl-ajru’… u nizzel li rrifjuta l-breathalyzer…”
It’s instinctive. Natural, even.
The biggest mistake pinned on Dr Mallia by the inquiry was the failure to correct the wrong statement when it became apparent the bullets had hit the car. As a result he was asked to resign.
So, how is the prime minister (Mallia’s direct superior) in any different position? He went to sleep too.
Are we to believe that he did not know the bullets had hit the car? Surely he had the political responsibility to correct the statement there and then.
So everyone saw the photo with the bullet in the car minutes after the crime, except the PM?
Now we know exactly why he did not have the guts to face Mallia and tell him to resign. They should have both gone.
The PM said he did not have a watch, will it be such a leap for him to say his TV was switched off and he was not on line.
I despair when I see how little of what the PM actually does registers on the collective mind. Why ever do we continue to expect a stone statue to cry genuine tears? We have had 20 months to figure out the chasm between what he says and what he actually does. Must we keep on being surprised?
I am increasingly reminded of a mother who never admits that her son is a lying bully. Each escalating incident has her being surprised and finding excuses for him because according to her he is good boy, the others made him do it, it was a fluke incident, he did not mean to or he has got bad luck. Really?!
Time to wake up, people.
The main point is that a serving policeman fired a gun without due cause in a public space and the prime minister thought so little of it he went to bed and left his hapless Super-One-Reporter-Turned-Government-Communications-Chief in charge of the problem.
To Muscat, all problems are simply about what tomorrow’s headlines will say and as long as they deflect blame away from him, there is no problem.
I agree with your statement and that is probably the reason why he and his supporters hate Daphne and her blog so much.
If a few more so-called journalists took a similar approach to reporting he would not have committed all these atrocities in 20 months.
Here I have to also congratulate Medialink Communications and Maltarightnow which have markedly improved over the past few weeks.
If you compare the way Lawrence Gonzi was howled at and hounded by all the media including the independent journalists, you will see the contrast between Muscat and Gonzi. Gonzi was never afraid of facing them and always gave a straight answer when he had one.
But Muscat cannot take direct questioning or face the media unless he has had time to contemplate their questions first.
He lies through his teeth and bats questions away so as not to get caught out.
He even lied about what he clearly said himself and is on record as having said, about the power station and resignation.