Taf x'taghmel ukoll, dik Astrid
MEPA's Planning Appeals Board chairman is my lawyer - hurrah!
So you know Astrid Vella tal-FAA is suing me for libel because of the stuff I wrote about her on this blog, right?
I last wrote about her many months ago, but she’s only just risen now like Lazarus because, I guess, she can’t stand to see the limelight on somebody else and needs to steal a bit of the action.
Hey, remember me?
I’m Little Red Riding Hood.
Hello? Hello?
But here’s the best bit: her lawyer is Ian Spiteri Bailey.
And what does Dr Spiteri Bailey do when he’s not arguing cases in court?
That’s right, folks – this is Malta. He’s chairman of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s Appeals Board.
Taf x’taghmel ukoll, dik Astrid.
What an island.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
So, Daphne? Who are you lawyers? Who has defended your cases in the past? Did they have any other roles?
[Daphne – Certainly. But they don’t have roles in organisations which I publicly oppose by means of my one-track-mind organisation. We’re talking FAA and the MEPA here. Please don’t act simple-minded, as I’m quite sure you’re not. This is a situation where the chairman of the MEPA’s Planning Appeals Board (remove one hat and put on another) is defending the ‘face’ of Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar, which has made it its sole mission to ‘police’ the MEPA. If you don’t think that’s utterly ridiculous, then you have lived here rather too long.]
Daphne: As far as has been made public, the case does not involve MEPA, does it? This, therefore, would ‘prima facie’ render any conflict of interest to be irrelevant issue in this case.
[Daphne – You just don’t get it, do you? That kind of attitude is exactly why things have reached such a pretty pass here.]
In addition to this, I think that the Development Planning Act makes it quite clear that the Planning Appeals Board is NOT part of MEPA’s structures.
Using your same line of thought, no architect sitting on any DCC board, consultative body or MEPA’s own board should be lodging planning applications!
[Daphne – Well, that actually is a problem, and one of the things which Astrid, ironically, argues about. To my mind, the obvious solution would be to appoint only retired architects to the DCC boards/consultative bodies.]
Likewise, all lawyers who serve on tribunals or providing judicial services should not be allowed to represent clients in cases in front of said tribunals or courts.
[Daphne – I don’t understand how the tribunal system works so I can’t comment there.]
Finally, Daphne, using your very same arguments, the President of the Chamber of Advocates, Dr. Andrew Borg Cardona, may have a conflict of interest if the Commission for the Administration of Justice was to deliberate on any report lodged by yourself since he is a partnership with your husband and also due to his posting in this blog.
[Daphne – He will obviously withdraw. But I don’t imagine that occurred to you.]
Personally, however, I would not share this opinion because I believe that he “enjoy(s) the respect of the public and have a reputation of integrity and honesty” regardless of the fact that I disagree with his political stands and am often irked by his writings.
And this, ultimately, is where two conclusions should be made: The first is that ultimately, it’s an individual’s honesty and integrity – regardless of his beliefs or posts occupied – which should be considered and, secondly, the casting of doubts and innuendos on people just because it may suit an individual is a worse crime than outright defamation.
[Daphne – This is where we part company, perhaps because we come from different cultures. If a person is truly honest and has integrity, then he or she will refuse certain commissions simply because there might be untoward perceptions about them, even if these perceptions are wrong. Putting the institution for which you work into a position where it might be MERELY PERCEIVED to be weakened by conflict of interest or favouritism is essentially wrong in itself. Persons of real integrity, with a finely tuned conscience, can see this.]
I sincerely hope that one day you’ll realise that character assassination is a much worse sin than physical assassination.
By the way, Daphne, I believe that Dr. Spiteri Bailey was on the Planning Appeals Board but I am under the impression that he is no longer serving there.
I am not surprised if this is the case and that the MEPA website is not updated.
This would indeed change the scenario somewhat, wouldn’t it?
[Daphne – No.]
Of course the scenario would be changed! ISB is free to represent whomsoever he wants to (in a nothing-to-do-with MEPA-case) once his contract is up. What sort of guff is this?
The thing is that if all the people in public positions who have cheated on their partners or have had a social or business relationship which could be considered in conflict with their position had to resign, I suspect that very few would be left standing. I am sure you must know a good number of stories about a good number of people ( and equally shocking) which you chose not to divulge. As Oscar so famously said “A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal”
Your point being, it seems, that the much discussed (no, not just for the past two weeks) extra curricular life of the magistrate is not unusual and should not therefore lead to impeachment or resignation.
That line of reasoning is a sure fire way of lowering standards: it bottoms out at the lowest possible common denominator.
Why not adhere to a principle instead? The practice is, after all, a magistrate’s stock-in-trade.
No, my point being that if this wrong, it is wrong for everyone in public office, and if one starts this sort of crusade it should be conducted against everyone, and not just a selected few.
Otherwise it will be perceived as a focused attack against particular individuals driven by a personal or political agenda, and not as a campaign in favour of the “principle”. We either bare it all or not at all.
I’ll repeat what I said, as it appears you have missed the point entirely. Why not adhere to a principle instead? The practice is, after all, a magistrate’s stock-in-trade.
My comment refers to magistrates adhering to principle rather than justifying low standards because ‘everyone else is doing it’.
You seem to be of the view that everything should carry on as it is, as any attempt to criticise particular people is dubious. Now, before you leap to your own defence, ask yourself why you do not spearhead that ‘crusade’ yourself.
This comment was posted earlier in the week but I am re posting it because I feel that today’s revelation by Daphne perfectly illustrates my argument.
Reading about the shameful political as well as judicial events which have been going on in Malta for so many years, it makes one wonder if the country was ever mature enough for independence.
This opinion is coming from thousands of miles away and from someone who has not lived in his country of birth for over 50 years so I can understand people wondering if I can possibly understand the Maltese mentality.
Despite all that, it’s almost incomprehensible how such a pitiful – if not criminal system, has been allowed to continue unabated for over 40 years!
Sad, very, very sad.
U ejja, unbelievable. This carnival is getting better than that of Nadur.
Nadur was shyte. Not a single Jesus costume in sight.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1385612149&ref=nf
Have a look at this councillor’s recent posts on Facebook – shocking to say the least, most of them showing people “jahraw” this was the same councillor that joined We Hate Gonzi and PN some few days ago. Labour never change.
Two lawyers signed the writ according to the times of Malta – Joe Giglio and Ian Spiteri Bailey
Your point being what? That Ian Spiteri Bailey is only 50% morally and ethically wrong to accept the case?
That’s very interesting. The pot calling the kettle black or rather like living with the enemy.
Hi Daphne,
Based on the facts you set out, in this case, in my opinion, it is not only Ms. Vella who has put herself in a difficult situation, but also the lawyer.
In my view, subject to the facts set out, the lawyer has put himself in a situation where he is likely to be perceived by the public to have a conflict of interest, on the one hand to act impartially on MEPA’s Appeals Board, and on the other to serve the head of FAA who is a regular open critic of MEPA, and possibly an objector who follows objections with appeals.
Did it not cross the lawyer’s mind, at the time of accepting a private engagement with Ms. Vella, that his position with MEPA and the need to be, and also importantly, the need to be seen to be, impartial with anyone presenting an appeal to the Appeals Board, should preclude him from accepting such a private client? These are the basics of conflict of interest issues.
Now, a moral obligation falls on whoever is responsible for the appointment of the lawyer heading the Appeals Board (according to law, the Appeals Board is to be headed by a lawyer, who is to be appointed, as the circumstances now stand, by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister), to ensure that such perception of impartiality is not undermined.
Of course, this is not to say that the law does not recognise that the lawyer who chairs the board, or any of its members, may have a conflict of interest – but it also states that a member of the Appeals Board may be removed from his post on grounds of conflict of interest.
What I’m seriously worried about is that Astrid, whom I have no hesitation about calling my friend, seems to have timed this libel suit as inconveniently as possible. I really hope the forces of evil had nothing to do with it.
As regards the fact that it’s Ian Spiteri Bailey – well, are you honestly surprised that an ex MEP PN candidate gets a sinecure? Were you born yesterday? Oh, I get it, silly me! Its the fact that he and Ast are supposed to slash each others throats on sight, right? Well, look at Harry cosying up to Dalli and you’ll see just what principles lawyers have: one – “l-argent”.
There’s a flip side to this: why should anyone who is held to ransom by the FAA now trust MEPA’s appeals board?
What does ‘held by ransom by FAA’ mean?
The Planning Appeals Board is NOT part of MEPA.
‘to ransom’ and not ‘by ransom’
Please explain how the MEPA Appeals Board is not part of MEPA.
Hold your horses -isn’t Spiteri Bailey the one who was earmarked by Joseph for the post of secretary-general?
If this libel case is going to take as long as the MEPA Appeals Board cases usually do, Astrid is in for a long long wait.
There is only one catch, and that`s catch 22. We live in Malta.
Since you are so updated, you should know that the MEPA website is not up to date and the Plannng Appeals board has been changed.
I came across this letter to the editor in the Times from George Debono.
http://f1plus.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081029/letters/preserving-beauty
Debono says; “the love of beauty and a capacity to appreciate something for its own sake distinguishes the human species from animals…….. Sadly, some humans are less human than others and still put profit above all else.”
“SOME HUMANS ARE LESS HUMAN THAN OTHERS”.
It is this kind of attitude which makes FAA people believe that they can attack anyone who expresses an opinion different from their own? Anyone who holds an opinion different from theirs is considered LESS HUMAN. This attitude also gives them the right, they believe, to distort facts as suits them best as FAA have done on countless occasions.
Dear Daphne,
Well said indeed – now how about a word or two about the rising unemployment rate in our country?
[Daphne – Please explain to me how you have equated the two.]
Daphne go to St Johns co cathedral and be humbled, when looking at all that beauty and craftsmanship and say to yourself, I am a little piddly nothing, I should shut up and go to see a shrink!
[Daphne – Thanks for the advice. I’ll take you up on it one day.]