Time to change
The case of Nicholas Azzopardi is the talk of the town. His death-bed allegation that he was beaten up by police and later woke from a coma in a hospital bed has the ring of truth about it. At that stage, Azzopardi didn’t know he was going to die. His death was unexpected. So he said what he did knowing that he would have to substantiate it.
This dreadful incident hits home because it has echoes of the past. It also has echoes of the present, in other police interrogation cells elsewhere. We know that these things happen, because they have happened in Malta and they happen in other places still.
The instant reaction to that story when it broke was not ‘Oh, the man’s a liar’, but ‘My God, he must be telling the truth.’ That wasn’t just my reaction. It was the reaction of almost everyone I spoke to. Past experience and present knowledge have conditioned us to expect this kind of thing. Going in for questioning is like disappearing into a black hole for the next 24 hours or so. It’s just you and the police, with no lawyer present.
Then the police issued a statement and police sources spoke to the newspapers, and that had the ring of truth about it, too. So who to believe? I’m not going to pronounce myself on this one, because from what I’ve read and heard so far, both sides of the story are equally credible and I just don’t know whose ‘truth’ to take on board, which is unusual for me.
I don’t think the police would just start beating somebody up, especially not over something as mundane as what seems to be a case of two estranged parents quarrelling over the kids and one accusing the other of molestation, apparently out of spite though not necessarily so. The police deal with these cases all the time as one marriage after another hit the rocks and the grown-ups involved end up behaving as anything but.
Then again, if Azzopardi – a heavily-built man depicted in press photographs wearing muscle-revealing vests – reacted physically to police taunts, I can well imagine that one of those present at the interrogation lashed out and literally made a hash of things, landing the police officers present in the room with a very serious problem that they might have solved in the worst possible manner. But then again, with the way the police force is run now, it would have been very difficult to haul a heavy and still conscious man out of the depot without anyone else noticing, still less heft him over the bastion.
If it did happen, we are talking about a major conspiracy of silence in the police force, and doubt nags at the back of my mind when I look at this rationally. Trust in the police force has improved, and with good reason. If this had happened 25 years ago, we would have had no doubt that the police did it, but things have changed, which makes me reluctant to rush to judgement. I have deep misgivings about the case either way.
The retired judge Albert Manche, who has been put in charge of the inquiry, is not one to be trifled with. He is a man to be trusted – though unfortunately, he will be handicapped by the fact that Magistrate Anthony Vella (the same one who banned publication of the name of the teacher who sent sexy text messages to his pupils, incidentally) didn’t see fit to record his death-bed questioning of Nicholas Azzopardi. Let’s hope he took notes at least.
My purpose here is to point out that this kind of bad thing only happens because our interrogation rules are those of a despotic regime, in which it is possible to beat and torture people at the police depot, or to put lies into their mouths, because there are no regulatory controls. The only controls we have now are entirely discretionary. They are based on good will.
I have written about this already: that it is appalling how the interrogation system the police use today remains entirely unchanged from the days when I and others were interrogated by Anglu Farrugia and his cronies in the 1980s. Those who are interrogated are not permitted even one telephone call to let their family know where they are. They just ‘disappear’ for the next 48 hours. They are not permitted legal counsel. They are not even permitted to telephone their lawyer. They are not told their rights, because quite frankly, they haven’t any. They are left floundering, quizzed in an unequal battle of wits between experienced detectives and those who have never been in such a situation before. Hardened criminals know how to handle things, but what of the rest?
I can well remember my own experience with Anglu Farrugia, which I have written about before, but it bears repeating, if only to annoy him: forced to sign a falsified confession which he typed while putting words in my mouth, after keeping me in total darkness for 27 hours, in a tiny cell with what smelled like excrement on the walls, with no water, and just one filthy sandwich, no access to a lawyer and no contact with anyone outside that notorious high gate.
Because I was a bit sharper than the average 19-year-old, certainly sharper than Farrugia, in any case, I used my boring time in that cell to work out a plan of action. I would let him write whatever he wanted to in my ‘statement’. I would agree to everything he said, even GBH on a policeman twice my size. Then I would sign the statement so that he would allow me to leave, and kick up a major fuss about it in court.
I knew that forced confessions didn’t count for zilch and that the whole thing would rebound on him, which it did. It is still rebounding on him today. Not everyone knows this, and it is not always possible to think clearly under such duress. I remember being very, very calm and thinking very, very clearly – but then I have broken down and flipped out in much less stressful situations. Heaven help anyone who flips out in a police interrogation, and not because of physical violence, either – but because if you say something ill-advised, you can end up with serious problems.
I find it incredible that in this day and age, when we are supposedly civilised, we continue to allow a situation in which people who are questioned by the police under detention have no access to a lawyer, and that the questioning is neither recorded, nor videotaped, nor even conducted in a room with a viewing-chamber or viewing-window that exposes the proceedings to authorised persons.
Please explain to me how it can be considered in any way safe or risk-free or even advisable to put a detained person in a closed room with police officers who are questioning him or her, with no scrutiny and no record of what is said or done. It is a recipe for disaster, a giant problem waiting to happen. And now it has happened. A man is dead and the police are being blamed for it. It is because our interrogation procedures have not kept pace with those of the civilised world that this has occurred. If Nicholas Azzopardi’s interrogation had been conducted formally, audiotaped, videotaped, scrutinised and with his lawyer present, then none of this would have happened. But when you interrogate somebody as though you are operating in Zimbabwe, calling him in and then causing him to disappear into a secluded room with police officers, you are asking for trouble. And when you ask for trouble, you usually get it.
We are so accustomed to watching British detective series on the television that we imagine this is the way interrogations are conducted in Malta. Two police officers sit across the table from you, and your lawyer sits by your side. A tape recorder sits on the table and the interrogating officer speaks the time into it and takes note of whoever leaves or enters the room, or any other physical movement that is untoward. The lawyer advises his client whether to answer or not answer certain questions. I have been told that one of the first things that people do when called in for questioning at our Police Depot is to ask for their lawyer, only to be met with a raised eyebrow. They assume, because of all their watching of detective films, that they have a right to a lawyer while under interrogation. Well, here’s some news for you: you have no more right to a lawyer now than you did in Police Commissioner Lorry Pullicino’s day. Nothing has changed since then.
My favourite government minister Tonio Borg had promised to do something about this when he was Minister of Justice. Instead, he dedicated the time to writing to floral clubs and jiu-jitsu associations, using his power of incumbency to get them to support Paul Vincenti’s whacko petition to have the fact that Malta is against abortion slotted into our Constitution. That was more important than making sure that people are never put into a position where they are immediately vulnerable to beatings and abuse by any interrogating officer who may be so inclined.
None of Tonio Borg’s predecessors in the justice ministry did anything about it, either. Now, with this case, we have reached the point of no return. Something has to be done about it. Even if it turns out that Nicholas Azzopardi died as a result of trying to escape rather than because of a police beating, this case should teach Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, Borg’s successor, and the police commissioner that we cannot afford to let this state of affairs go on.
We need the British system of controlled and monitored police interrogation, and we need it now. The police say that it hinders their objectives. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? But nothing hinders your objectives more than a national scandal in which a man dies after claiming grievous bodily harm by the police.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
54 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
spot on daphne. the deck is stacked in favour of the police from day 1. ant dont they just love ruining people. and they earnestly interrogate untill at one point they say that u will be spending the night there as you are tired. they lead u down to the lockup and some oaf calls your family to tell them….hi, dan ha jorqod hawn illum. All part of the softening process. And God Forbid if u are a moderately successful person. Il-Hdura li tohrog hija inkredibbli. All aided by law courts that dont perform to protect the innocent untill proven guilty. Misshom jisthu. Heads should roll about this. The investigating officers for one. And if needs be, we should go higher. We need a political withchunt against abuse of power by those under oath to uphold justice. And we dont need Macho Policemen .
100% – excellent
At last, somebody that does not go mealy-mouthed and
wax poetic every time our out-dated despotic and tyrannical
police force is mentioned. I am sick of hearing ministers
extolling the “virtues” of our police force. They are corrupt
unreasonable, impotent when really needed. They turn their
Nelson-eye with the real tough criminals but woe betide you
if you are one of the ‘shrimps’.Please do not tell me not to tar the whole lot of them with the same brush because anybody
who has needed them in any situation will tell you about
their arrogance and God-like attitudes. Please Mr. Minister, get your finger out and
see how to go about trimming these people’s wings. Most of them are the ones who really ought to be locked up.
Interrogations at the Police Headquarters in Floriana do not enjoy that kind of transparent procedure which guarantee beyond any reasonable doubt that Nicholas Azzopardi passed away without the agressive interference of the policemen involved in his interrogation. I cannot understand why politicians and the police corps have not yet learned their lesson from the horrible history of those dark days in Malta, when Nardu Debono was dumped somewhere after having been murdered. Many times we hear talk about the environment, ecenomic reforms, progress in the touristic sector and the positive impact of Malta’s EU membership. THis is all correct if and only if we all work hard to ensure that all Maltese citizens and people who reside at or visit this country are safe and fully protected, even when legal circumstances make them end up in the Police Headqurters in Floriana. Otherwise, we’ll be experiencing the Wild West!
Prosit Daphne for such a sound article.
History repeats itself it is said. But I say people and persons repeat history.The Police Headquarters you referred to looks like a copy cat behaviour of the days under the Pullicino’s regime.
What a real shame on our democracy and personal freedom. Again well said Daphne and I aggree hundred per cent on your sound suggestions. Indeed, better late then never.
Keep hammering on the need to change such barbaric interrogation’s environement.
How being interrogated for “familial” matters leads to the accused death is beyond me.
I think the police do have some fault in this:
I dont know anything about the guy’s background but he’d have to be pretty sure of himself or mad to take try take on all the police present in the interrogation room and the depot. So I’m assuming they provoked him-which is really really wrong of them to do anyhow.
And why would he try to escape if the allegations or whatnot were so trivial?And Try to escape..in Malta? Could he have been tryin to escape from the police who were, possibly, beating him?–one would have to be in that state of mind to “fall” out a window or from the bastions or whatever.
I have a feeling we’re never going to find out the real truth in this case.
Prosit Daphne. This must be one of the best articles I have seen bearing your name.
If I may add my 2 euro cents worth of comment, apart from what you said in a near-perfect way in your article, I would also like to add something else to your comment about the power of the press.
Like you, I am really finding it difficult to shape an opinion on this matter, and what I have read about this matter in written and electronic newspapers doesn’t help either.
The only titbits I got from reading reports about this case were that Mr.Azzopardi was a well-built man, and that he was being questioned by Police about alleged wrongdoings with his daughter. Nowhere did I see written that Mr.Azzopardi was involved in some sort of separation procedures with his wife.
In my mind, Mr.Azzopardi was becoming a pedo bully, when it seems he was nowhere near this.
When will you journalists learn to say the full story, the whole truth?
Apart from the cheap anti Labour and anti Anglu Farrugia propaganda, this article is spot on.
However, it is also true that the press reporting on this issue has left a lot to be desired. In particular The Times’ story smacks of bias in favour of the police especially in today’s edition.
There are a number of questions which have remained unanswered. Here are a few which spring to mind.
Why didn’t the statemnt about the police officer who allegedly ‘helped’ Azzopardi from falling over the wall have to be issued now?
Why did the government hastily decide to appoint a retired judge to conduct a separate inquiry into the alleged beating?
How can you define ‘injuries that are consonant with trying to hold a man from jumping over a wall’? (that really takes the cake – a disgrace to the medical profession and its credibility)
But then we don’t seem to be alone. Look at fellow EU members Austria.
[Moderator – Really? Cheap propaganda?]
Well done Daphne , I did not know that we have no right for the presence of a lawyer during interrogation. We are still at the mercy of bullies who may have entered the Police Corps to practice violence under the veil of legality . I would feel very vulnerable and threatened in such circumstances.
You said that the law needs to be updated , one is presumed innocent unless proven (BY A COURT) guilty.A so called modern law which hangs like an albatross around the neck of every Nationalist Justice minister assumes one is guilty unless he proves himself innocent , the local (read Traffic) Warden system where one is persecuted more than prosecuted. There is too much (money) to lose if the law is revised in favour of car drivers/owners.
One thing which I observed about the short video being published is that it was sort of secretly shot, ” ejja fajjar……” Was that against court orders also? Was the accused presumed guilty on his (death) bed?
@ Mcomb: have you ever visited the prisons? Hearing the gate being closed bolted and locked is enough to bring shivers down one’s spine. Dante’s PERDETE OGNI SPERANZA comes to my mind.
Great article. Unbelievable that Parliament or the courts have not devised a bill of rights for all citizens arrested which I presume would include:
1. The right to know that you are arrested and the reason for the arrest before interrogation can start.
2. The right to know that anything you say can and will be used against you.
3. The right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
4. The right to call a relative or close family member to tell them of your whereabouts.
Aren’t these basic human rights?
@Uncle Fester – you can be interrogated without being arrested. Nicholas Azzopardi wasn’t under arrest; he was being interrogated. You would still need to have a lawyer present, but in Malta this is not permitted. It is not a matter of the interrogation being allowed to proceed with or without a lawyer present. You are actually barred from having your lawyer there.
When I saw the title of the article ,I thought it was going to be a vintage DCG outcry dealing with the long-awaited mePA reform , the presence of the same faces on the various MEPA boards and the past stewardship of said entity by Min .Pullicino. I was sadly mistaken. It was just the umpteenth attempt at undermining systematically, ministers and public (political and non political) lesser mortals whose well-known religious persuation are a thorn in the side of the faction actively involved in severing our Party from its former Religio and Patria slogan.
[Moderator – I see, now we are systematically undermining ministers ‘and other lesser mortals’ because we do not want to regress to authoritarianism.]
you hit the nail on the head daphne
Let me rephrase one sentence:
‘We are so accustomed to watching British detective series on the television that we imagine this is the way interrogations are conducted in Britain.’
These safeguard measures are nothing but, as we say in Maltese, bzar fl-ghajnejn. When it comes to investigative and interrogative techniques, police forces across the world are experts at breaking the law. Since crime is all that police officers see day in, day out, they think it is as pervasive and prevalent as their perspective depicts. This creates in them a self-righteous arrogance that justifies the bending of rules. They are, after all, the “thin blue line” that saves society from itself. For them, the end always justifies the means.
The fundamental problem is the punitive paradigm we live in, not its workings…
It’s much, much worse in the US, which is today by most criminological measures a highly sophisticated police state (and the UK is not far behind). Habeas corpus is as good as dead in the US and in England, its birthplace, it is being slowly killed off by “anti-terr’rst” laws which, like “anti-money laundering” and “anti-drugs” laws before them, have done nothing but erode our civil liberties and added power to the forces of the state. And yet the masses keep asking for more “security”, while governments and their police/intelligence agencies do their utmost to cause them to want more of the same. It’s got a spiral effect that benefits only the forces of control. The tragic part is that these forces have long had the capacity to actually cause that desired effect.
In Malta, we are still at the stage of introducing safeguard measures which the British had introduced in the 70s and 80s. (Ironically, we were quicker to introduce the despotic anti-laundering laws, but that’s because we were forced to do so by the Americans and our mentors in the EU.) And yet, I’m sure that in Malta we are freer from police despotism than in much of the Western world.
…………………..
On a different note, Daphne mentions her fav, Tonio Borg… In some strange timeline, with George Abela and Tonio Borg heading the two main parties, I’d bet my last cent Daphne would vote Labour.
[Moderator – When the police began service in the UK there were outcries from people who claimed that it was far too authoritarian a measure. It’s the thin end of the wedge, whatever you think of the police. But people easily forget that the US and the UK are countries which have gone to war while at the same time managing to keep their people hermetically sealed off from the effects of it. States have been much more authoritarian during times of war, even up to a couple of decades ago. During World War II, whole private enterprises were nationalised and their manufacturing plants turned over to state control in order produce weapons for the British war effort. When you look at the situation within its historical context then it appears not as though the two great democracies are regressing to authoritarianism, but rather that they are progressing away from it. Coincidentally, someone in my house is reading The Democratic Rollback by Larry Diamond.]
Well done, Daphne, for a balanced article that points out what should have been done 21 years ago. Even I do not know what to think about this Azzopardi case. But I am starting to lean towards the Police version as they have the CCTV recordings. Nevertheless, one point should be stressed: when a person is in Police custody, whether arrested or just for questioning, the Police become responsible for whatever happens to that person. If the onus is clearly on the Police, they should see that proceedings are filmed and next of kin fully informed. That would already go a substantial way towards avoiding this kind case.
Well done for explaining a state of affairs that calls for immediate reform. Keep up the pressure. You may need support on this even if many will shy away at the crucial moment. Yet your contribution is indeed the happy face of journalism. Prosit.
Pino: What a strange system of priorities you have. If safety in the police depot is less important than getting a permit to knock down buildings and contruct new ones, then we should be thankful that you’re not in government. Or maybe we should be afraid that you are.
I am always amazed that in Malta we have lawyers coming out of the woodwork but few, to my knowledge, show any interest in working to improve the civil rights of their fellow citizens. Is there anything in Malta comparable to the American Civil Liberties Union?
@Marku – lawyers are the first to complain and the last to help work to change the system. Instead, they get into parliament to help perpetuate it.
It was the health department that ultimately killed him.
With such injuries, and after over a week in bed, the risk of a fatal embolus was extremely high, a temporary filter could have been placed in his main vein in a procedure that takes just ten minutes, this would have spared his life by catching the embolus before it blocked his remaining lung.
Mater Dei, is it really a state of the art hospital? A hospital internal enquiry should be held.
@L.cert
His father claimed that he had bought 7 injections to prevent thromboembolism. Do you think that these were not enough?
With immediate effect, authorities should envisage that a lawyer is present whenever the police need to interrogate someone. If he/she cannot afford one, the state should be duty bound to offer one. Government must put this high on the agenda and in this way remove any doubts. This is no other Nardu Debono ( may he rest in peace ). Gone are those days when people could not even have the right to stage a protest or own a 2-way radio !
What does the emergency report say when the late Mr. Azzopardi was admitted after the alleged fall ? Was the medical officer questioned ? Although I know Magistrate Vella to a small degree – I know him to be a meticulous person – I cannot understand how a recording of the questioning was not taken.
Let us all wait for all inquireies to end and let’s not jump to conclusions.
@ Daphne. System needs to be changed if that is the case. Are you saying that police can interrogate without advising of rights even where they have probable cause to arrest?
Yes, let us wait for the enquiry to end.
Someone above said people are repeating history. I fully agree and the more we wait, more ways would be found to cover this horrible death.
Those responsible should be instantly brought to justice a s a p.
What Daphne experienced some 30 years ago is still going on.
I am sorry to say that nothing has changed and once again nobody wants to shoulder any political responsabilities.
Od course I do understand that Daphne used once more, as she often does, to condemn the Labour Party. Daphne very often looses all her composure and all her sense of justice and fairness, as a bull does in the ring when he sees red.
I am sorry to say that the way weaved her article makes anyone sceptic about her true message. daphne is nowadays old enough to know that her tantrums when she sees red is losing her credibility.
Word of advice to Daphne, though I am younger then her:Try to control yourself as you well described you did in that horrible cell and you surely gain a lot.
@SB
“His father claimed that he had bought 7 injections to prevent thromboembolism. Do you think that these were not enough?”
Clearly these injections (probably subcutaneous heparin) were not enough, that is why he is now dead.
Trauma patients who are in imminent danger of embolism cannot be properly anticoagulated, since they are at risk of bleeding, that is why a temporary filter is the treatment of choice in any hospital worth its salt.
How does Mater Dei claim to be a “state of the art” hospital when it lets patients die needlessly this way?
@L.Cert – just a point of scientific and medical information. The filters that you are speaking about have received mixed reviews in a number of studies with some showing some success whilst others showing an increased risk of complications resulting from their insertion. The use of these implants at MDH is usually reserved for those with massive and clear cut deep vein thrombosis.
@ SB – the drug that is used in such a case is Heparin, that is cheaply, easily and freely available at MDH. (Though its use might have increased internal bleeding in such a patient as this case – it is a double sided sword). So in a way, if his father really said that he bought 7 injections, I start to really doubt the honesty of these people.
Jenny,
are you five years old? Please have someone proofread your comments before sending them as I can only cringe so many times in one day.
@Jenny:
I’m young enough just to not have been around in those seemingly dreadful times. On the contrary to what you wrote, DCG is actually doing us maltese quite an honourable service by throwing “her tantrums”, especially when it comes to referencing the darker days of recent maltese history.
This ‘history’ isn’t exactly taught at school(or atleast wasnt taught to me) so it would be a shame and an injustice (towards the older generations) that these things be forgotten or –worse still– ignored by the generations to come.
Europarl seems to know what goes on behind the scenes.He could be right.
@John Schembri – that’s because Europarl was a police inspector (not in the bad old days).
@L.cert and Chris
I am aware that heparin is used as an anticoagulant in acute therapy and I assumed that the injections in question were subcutaneous (low molecular weight) heparin. However, I cannot understand why intravenous (unfractionated) heparin which is freely available at hospital wasn’t used. Maybe due to a higher incidence of bleeding?
I am sure I heard/read about the 7 injections but unfortunately I cannot remember where.
I managed to find my source by a simple google search. It was maltastar:
http://76.163.32.44/pages/msrv/msFullArt.asp?an=20738
It isn`t only Daphne who goes positively ballistic when we remember the bad old days under the labour regime…… the police force then was really a repressive instrument of the goverment of the day and was often mobilised to quash legitimate political activities and harass law- abiding citizens. The terrible incident which has just happened has nothing to do with political repression. If it is a case of an individual officer using brutal force I have no doubt that the perpetrator will be brought to justice.
Didn’t the brother of Nicholas Azzopardi say that Nicholas was called upon by the police because his wife was alleging that he was molesting their young daughter? This is according to at least one source, di-ve.com, http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=51106 -“Recounting the evolving of the events, Ing Azzopardi explained that his brother had been summoned to the police headquarters on Tuesday, April 8 following the allegations — presumably made by his estranged wife — that he was molesting his seven-year-old daughter.”
Maybe that’s why the police gave him a beating.
Nevertheless it was wrong – primarily because they shouldn’t take punishment into their own hands, and secondly because the allegations were just that. However, one can at least understand what *may* have caused to police to get violent in this case – allegations of child molestation – sort of like when criminals beat up pedos in prison.
The rights of suspects under interrogation by the police cannot be better guaranteed unless the person interrogated has a lawyer to advise and assist him right from the very first minute. The police are experienced in interrogation while the suspect may not be so and the latter is ounumbered and often disoriented in an unfamiliar environment. The dice are usually loaded against the suspect, he has no equality of arms. The police, on the other hand, have a relatively limited time, 48 hours only, within which to try and find enough prima facie grounds to charge the suspect, if such grounds exist, and then must release the suspect or charge him before the magistrate (habeas corpus).
The police probably oppose the introduction of the right to a lawyer because they prefer to have a 48 hour long free-hand, more or less, as they do now. In the past, even the 48 hour rule was frequently broken by having the suspect re-arrested immediately after release but a ruling by Judge Filletti put an end to this malpractice on the part of the police. Not all police interrogators have the same level of legal expertise and those with a lower level would feel more threatened by the presence of a lawyer. Of course, if the right to a lawyer is introduced, some kind of balance must be found so that the police would not be severely handicapped in their investigations. The lawyer would be there to ensure the suspect is not denied his rights of due process and not to obstruct the police in their legitimate investigations. It would seem that there has been some reluctance in curtailing police power during the 48 hours allowed for arrest, before habeas corpus kicks in, by giving a suspect the right to the presence of a lawyer which would grant equality of arms to him.
In the US, the right to a lawyer is guaranteed and it is mandatory for police to caution the person under arrest not only that he has the right to keep silent and that anything he may say may be used against him but also that he has the right to an attorney and that, if he cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided free at public expence. In the celebrated case Miranda versus Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney prior to questioning by police. In Malta, the right to a lawyer only begins once the suspect is charged before the magistrate.
I believe it is only when this right is finally given to all persons as soon as they are arrested by the police that we will have better guarantees.
Joseph: Why wait for the conclusions of an enquiry? If it is not already categorically clear that Nicholas Azzopardi’s story is untrue, then it is categorically clear that police interrogration can be dangerous. You don’t need any enquiry to know that.
@M. Bormann ; prisoners should not beat up Anyone , nor should police take the law into their hands (and feet0 and beat the s…t out of any one who is being interrogated.
Let’s give more weight to Europarl’s contribution , Daphne says he was a Police inspector.He would not be telling us about his past experiences, but he is surely putting us in the mindset of our police officers and the unwritten Modus Operandi of the force.
It is heartening to observe that no one is doubting Commissioner John Rizzo’s behaviour.
@ Moderator ” But people easily forget that the US and the UK are countries which have gone to war while at the same time managing to keep their people hermetically sealed off from the effects of it. States have been much more authoritarian during times of war, even up to a couple of decades ago.”
You said that the US and the UK are not engaged in a war , well they actually are and soldiers and civilians died and are still dying. President Bush declared a war against terrorism. You may tell me “but that is not a conventional war”, well after the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon & the twin towers which were planned and executed from within the US ,one does not feel safe and free (hermetically sealed) anymore in this so called “Free Country” ; biometric passports , orange alert , green , or red alert , more questioning at passport control , suspicious looks because they do not know where Malta is and one’s language is ‘Arabic’.
With the excuse of this war against the unknown enemy , American people’s rights have been further eroded, and they do not feel safe and free any more in their home country . Remember that THE Pentagon was ‘successfully’ attacked by a terrorist who is still at large. And Saddam had nothing to do with it. I am all out against what happened on 9/11 , but I think the political powers all over the grabbed the occasion to further erode people’s rights. I suggest Michael Moore’s books for further reading about this subject.
[Moderator – Carefully re-read what I wrote. The two countries have gone to war. Now let’s get back to the subject of this post.]
@Freethinker – In the US the right to a lawyer is not, as you say, “guaranteed” – not anymore, anyway, and this is also true with habeas corpus and the right to privacy and free expression. The key word to trigger off state tyranny is today “terr’rsm” (that’s how I spell it, sorry).
Check out the USA/Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Do your own research. The tyrants have re-written the laws!
Federal law enforcement agencies are given the power to secretly enter homes and seize (or plant?) any evidence without even having to inform the occupants – ever! They have the power to monitor Internet traffic, emails, cell phones… in their world, everyone is a “suspect”, just as everyone is a suspect under the established regimes of the “war on drugs” and the “war on dirty money”, which have overturned age-old principles to the detriment of civil liberties.
Thousands of American citizens, especially those of Middle Eastern descent, have passed through the process of being indefinitely arrested without trial and without access to a lawyer. You will hardly read this in the mainstream media, but most of it is there nonetheless, hidden under piles of sensationalism related to the Brittney Spears of this world.
Law enforcement in the West has taken a life of its own. The age of Sherlock Holmes is long gone. Today, you could have a back-office federal agent monitoring and identifying potential “terr’rst cells”, creating files through “association” – an illusion and a mockery of real life, truly. In older days these targets used to be called “anarchists”, “saboteurs”, “enemies of the state”… they are in fact political, minority, subcultural or religious organizations exercising their right to free expression, reacting to injustices they may be suffering. Anything can be defined as having “terr’rst” aims and inclinations. Today, such an “organisation” could just be an obscure online forum stuffed with weird rants.
This vast network of state spying creates a tremendous amount of data on thousands of “potentially suspect” citizens. It then takes over-zealous law enforcement agents to lead their teams into investigating those “cells” which appear most likely, to their mind, to be inclined to pursue violent means toward their cause. So they recruit “informants” and engage specific “agent provocateurs”, who would have pending serious charges against them dropped if they “cooperated”. These “agents” infiltrate the identified potential “cells”, motivate them if they find them lacking, organise them, indeed lead them if necessary, and help them out generally by providing plans, tools and the rest of the “evidence” needed to nail them. Then the “cell” is raided, the “suspects” are arrested and paraded, the false agent is freed and given a new identity, and the media tell us how lucky we are to have brave federal agents who thwarted yet another terr’rst attack… ask Skuttlend Jard, they’re learning fast…
I could write a whole volume on this, but I kept it as short as possible.
You see, we hear a lot about “conspiracy theories”, yet the sad truth is that conspiracy is all that governments and their agents do. And the worst governments are of the federal type, whose largely unnaccountable agents get a free ticket to treat the citizenry as fodder towards their aims. Their aims being, of course, to secure and increase their organisation’s (and therefore their own) power over the citizens they control. Multiply that by each federal or state entity over a period of time and you end up with a tyrannical totalitarian system.
Today, laws are written not by legislators but by the bureaucratic executive branches, which are infested with so-called “experts”. And just as a dung expert would tell you that the subject of his profession is the most crucial to the world’s survival, so would a law enforcement “expert”. These experts feed on crime and terror, and that is what their ploys create, wittingly or unwittingly.
Those of you who believe that eventually the truth always surfaces have no idea what truths they’re missing. It’s like when I used to say that I can always spot a man with a wig, without realising that I can never identify the number of times I fail to spot the wig).
@Daphne – for the record: I became a PI at age 23 in 1984. In fact, I sat for external exams just a few months after returning from a four-year stint in the Soviet Union. By the autumn of 1984 I was working at the notorious yard – just next to office number 12, incidentally. So I guess that would be “in the bad old days” (in my books it was Malta’s post-independence civil war, which culminated with the ‘Battle of Tal-Barrani’. Other countries have had far more atrocious and bloody civil wars.)
Perhaps I see things differently because of my (for me) peculiar life-course, which has led me to three particular experiences: (a) Soviet totalitarianism, (b) the inner workings of a law enforcement agency (a miniscule one at that, but they all depict the same behaviourism), and, today (c) I once again breathe the familiar air of totalitarianism, this time within the very heart of this new “Beacon of Democracy”: the EU parliament.
What saddens me most is to see intelligent people not realizing that behind what we’re told there lies an iceberg of secret and illegal state activity. This explains why millions of rational Germans applauded the Nazis, why most Russians agreed that the Communist Party was the best thing that ever came their way, and why today the sheeple in the West are blind to what goes on behind the scenes. It does not, however, explain why intelligent people remain sheeple. That would require another form of explanation, delving also into why the Maltese “intelligentsia” (and most of their counterparts in the EU) have no idea what the Lisbon Treaty is really about.
In the end of the day, the police in Malta are angels compared to some elements in Western law enforcement agencies, and the Maltese state – just another government obedient to the diktat of Western civilisation.
@Chris
the latest filters can be placed safely and left in place for months before being taken out easily once the danger was over, subcutaneous heparin is useless in such a situation, the temporary removable filter would definitely have saved his life, a hospital internal enquiry should be held.
@europarl: I am aware of the laws you mention consequent on 9/11, especially the much-written about Patriot Act. Though these restrict certain rights in certain circumstances, the basic rights I wrote about still subsist in ordinary circumstances as far as I am aware.
After what went on prior to 1987, culminating in the case of Nardu Debono, one would have expected the newly-elected PN government to change police interrogation rules. But as you state, “None of Tonio Borg’s predecessors in the justice ministry did anything about it, either.” Why not? Probably because that’s ingrained in our nature – we show a lot of passion in reacting to something but flop when it comes to acting. Whether it’s a fireworks explosion, allegations of irregularities … the pattern is the same – a hysterical reaction, miles of print and endless discussion on TV over the first couple of weeks, then everything fizzles out. Until the next incident.
Do our interrogation rules conform to EU standards or is this one of those areas left at the discretion of the individual Member State? Even so, there are a number of international groups that advocate and defend human rights and can be alerted to the situation in Malta.
Yes, Freethinker, the “basic rights STILL subsist”, so far… “in ordinary circumstances” and for the majority who are not born in some targeted subculture… so I guess all is fine, right?
Remember, fascism (I prefer ‘totalitarianism’) always creeps in slowly and surreptitiously. The European political tradition does not consist solely of the democratic republican tradition. We have had many different European traditions, including the Inquisition and the tyrannical popes, Cromwell, Robespierre, sovietism, Italian-style fascism, the Greek, Spanish and Portuguese juntas, nazism, the list is endless… so let’s not take freedom for granted, because by any measure we’ve already lost most of our cherished Western principles.
@”my name is Leonard but my son calls me Joey”
Don’t worry, the Lisbon Treaty ensures that the criminal justice field is eventually firmly under “Union Competence”, and although Malta is bound to some day introduce the safeguard measures anyway (which safeguard very little), we would also have to introduce the despotic legislation being conceived in the US and introduced to the EU largely by the UK. And we would of course have to open our doors to federal raids by Europol, the Union’s answer to the FBI, which is no speciality since law enforcement is (or should be) a local matter and only liaison and cooperation is required at a supranational or federal level.
But in your eyes the EU is nothing but benevolent. I know, I’ve been there myself up till at least 1992. It is not that simple.
I believe it was Aristotle who once said that it is not the law per se that creates tyranny but the spirit in which the law is applied: the Spirit of the Times. If the spirit is despotic, then the most humane laws can still be used in despotic ways.
Alternatively, what we have today is the gradual introduction of new sets of despotic legislation, while the old Spirit of the Times still prevails (well, what’s left of it). Soon, when that spirit completes its change, the new laws will ensure that our (new) supreme courts would not even have the problem of interpretation in order to apply tyranny.
This can change if the people wake up, now!
To all the peaple who are in doubt aboutthe Magesterial and Independent Inquires I only say ‘May i refresh your memory that it was Magesterial Inquiry that found that the Pietru Pawl Busuttil case was a frame up’. So please wait for the inquires to end and findings made public. I also wish ta commend Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici for instituting the Independent Inquiry.
Joseph, I do not think that we should allow any individual to face on her/his own, for a good 48 hours, policepersons in an anonymous room.
Well done Daphne for a brilliant article. I am totally shocked to read about the system in Malta. I had no idea that a person could be legally treated in this manner at the police headquarters. I was under the impression that it would be like on tv, just as you said. It is very frightening.You have put in print what a lot of people are thinking, i’m sure. What about starting a petition? I suppose we would all be too frightened to sign it because of the repercussions? O what to do?
@ Lino Cert
Not to start a medical/scientific discussion on this blog, but one large study of severe injuries (450,375 patients) showed only a 0.36% (1602) incidence of Venous thromboembolic events with only 522 ending in Pulmonary Embolism. This same study also showed that those with a real possibility of VTE can be identified through risk factors – age ≥40 years, lower extremity fracture, head injury, ventilator days >3, venous injury, and a major operative procedure. I would have added genetic risk factors (something that was not examined in this retrospective study). In addition, only 50% of trauma centres (and this in the USA) had a clear protocol. In the majority of cases where no contraindication of heparin was present, the preferred treatment was Heparin with leg compression. In only 1% was the filter used as part of the protocol (this goes up to 16% if Heparin is contraindicated.
So I would tend to state that though the filter might seem to be a good idea, it is still far away from being accepted as a good clinical practice standard and this mainly due to its possible grave side effects.
@chris
as you day, in this study you quoted, out of 1602 with post-traumatic venous thrombosis 522 (30%) ended up with pulmonary embolis, this means that Nicholas Azzopardi had a one-in-three chance of an embolus,since he had a thrombus in his legs.
In the case of Nicholas Azzopardi this would almost certainly be fatal since he had very little pulmonary reserve left.
A filter costing 500 euros would have given him a significantly improved chance of survival.
This is not the first such death from embolism following traums, there have been tens of such deaths in the last few years in Mater Dei, the most high profile death being that of the young “extra” in the film Gladiator who died after an embolus after a leg injury, despite having obvious signs of thrombosis. These deaths of young people by embolism are totally avoidable, and yet a “state of the art” hospital like Mater Dei claims it is, ignores these deaths and doesnt hold internal inquiries.
I second Angela’s proposal for a petition. Anyone knows how to start one?
[Moderator – Internet Petitions]
@europarl: I’m not sure whether we are straying slightly off topic here but, all the same, I assure you I cherish civil rights as much as the most assiduous libertarian. And civil rights are not the monopoly of any ethnic group. I agree, in principle, that it is not desirable to target any “subculture”, to use your own term. It is, however, undeniable that it was people from a certain culture who were the perpetrators of terrorist acts in the US, UK, Madrid and elsewhere. I therefore cannot blame those whose task it is to protect society from terrotist acts if they give special attention to persons who are part of that culture. It is, unfortunately, impossible to target everyone indiscriminately and it may be necessary to be selective. It is, after all, normal practice to identify possible suspects and one usually concentrates on those who are most likely to have committed a crime or about to commit one. If a bank robbery takes place, the usual suspects are more likely to be those who may have been involved in a previous heist. Unfortunate but necessary. The important thing is that the law, including constitutional law, provides adquate juridical remedies in case the executive abuses its powers or the legislative attempts to enact law undermining civil rights.
@ europarl yow… didn’t know it was you!
the fundamental tension here, the role of the issue, is how do you balance the need for extract information from a suspect with the morality of not using such interrogation techniques that constitute torture.
There is a fine line between interrogation and interview, at the same time there is a fine line for course of interrogation and torture. What is the line in a course of interrogation, should it be a hostile interview? How are you going to extract information from a suspect? What mechanisms/ practice should we use? Do we need a lawyer while we are being interrogated?
Think it will be enough if one just record the questioning . The system might need some fine tuning but think it’s the mentality of the police that should be changed, their approach and their provocative attitude. What happened to that policeman who was caught on tape beating that old women in Regional Road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmPg5YwLvNk
In America, where politics has turned dumb, dumber, dumberer, and even dumbererer are allowing CIA to use torture techniques on terrorism suspects. Such as waterboarding this has been used since the Spanish inquisition, this technique gives a sensation of drowning without causing death, torture transgress the Geneva Convention but their excuse is that they have to fight “the war on terror”. Another war, as if this country didn’t have enough wars.
Of course politics should be kept out of this right? It is irrelevant that for 20 years the Nationalists were responsible to bring about the required changes. No, one should talk about this in an apolitcal, non-partisan matter.