By order of the Chief Justice, 21 cases involving politicians and journalists are removed from Consuelo Herrera and transferred to another magistrate
Consuelo Herrera (left) hosting a birthday party where the guests included several of those who are plaintiffs and defendants before her
Back in late March, using the law courts’ online facility, I researched all the libel cases pending before Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera, which involved her friends, dinner companions and party guests. I then wrote about them on this website and listed them.
When Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was seen dining with her and a few other friends at St Paul’s Bay, I wrote about that too, pointing out that he was at the time the defendant in a case over which she was presiding.
When I researched the same cases again a few days ago online, something strange happened: all of them showed up as being presided over by Magistrate Gabriella Vella. I knew that Magistrate Herrera wouldn’t have relinquished them voluntarily because it is not in her character to do the decent thing and act with integrity.
If she told us that she thinks there is nothing wrong in entertaining those who are plaintiffs and defendants before her, then she is going to stick to that line and justice be damned – no matter how obvious it might be to the rest of us that no, magistrates should NOT entertain and socialise with those who are plaintiffs and defendants before them.
I made a couple of telephone-calls and discovered that, on 1 April and unnoticed by everyone except the parties involved, the Chief Justice gave the order that 21 libel suits presided over by Magistrate Scerri Herrera were to be reassigned forthwith to another magistrate, Gabriella Vella.
The order, given in writing and signed by the Chief Justice himself (I have a copy), was affixed in the Registry of the Superior Courts, by the registrar. But nobody noticed its significance, or if they did, they kept quiet about it.
The cases taken out of Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s hands by the Chief Justice on 1 April include all those I mentioned on this website in late March as involving her party guests and dinner companions.
These are the cases taken away from Magistrate Herrera by order of the Chief Justice:
318/2005 JOHN RIZZO VS ALFRED BRIFFA ET (editor of It-Torca)
323/2005 ROBERT ARRIGO PRO ET NOE VS LINO FARRUGIA PRO ET NOE
433/2005 MARLENE MIZZI VS AUSTIN GATT
147/2006 LAWRENCE GONZI VS ALFRED SANT
156/2006 ROBERT ABELA VS GRACE BORG
180/2006 KEVIN MICALLEF NOE VS CONNIE GAUCI DE BRINCAT
196/2006 ALBERT MIZZI VS SAVIOUR BALZAN
132/2007 AUSTIN GATT VS CLAIRE BONELLO
224/2007 JESMOND MUGLIETT VS STEFAN ZRINZO AZZOPARDI
225/2007 JESMOND MUGLIETT VS MIRIAM DALLI ET
251/2007 ANTHONY SIVE NINU ZAMMIT VS ALFRED SANT
266/2007 ANTHONY SIVE NINU ZAMMIT VS JASON MICALLEF
294/2007 MICHAEL FALZON VS JOE SAMMUT
386/2007 JESMOND MUGLIETT VS ALFRED SANT
85/2008 ALFRED SANT VS ANTHONY SIVE NINU ZAMMIT
98/2008 PETER FENECH VS MIRIAM DALLI
113/2008 KARMENU VELLA VS JEFFREY PULLICINO ORLANDO
117/2008 LUCIANO BUSUTTIL ET VS ALEX ATTARD NOE (Alex Attard is news editor at the Nationalist Party media)
176/2008 GIOVANNO DEBONO VS KURT FARRUGIA
An interesting aside is that, when being cross-examined in the criminal defamation suit she instigated against me, Consuelo Herrera claimed – indeed, swore on oath – that she had no idea who Kurt Farrugia is, that she only knows about him because of what I write, and that all she knows about Maltastar is that it is “something in the computer”.
She never said that he is the defendant in a case over which she was presiding until that case was removed from her by the Chief Justice.
I have since spoken to several lawyers who have told me that, in their decades of experience at the law courts, they have never known a case to be removed from one magistrate and transferred to another by order of the Chief Justice, still less 21 cases of the same type removed en masse from a magistrate.
I wonder for how long Magistrate Herrera hoped to keep this unprecedented event concealed, but now we know why her brother became hysterical on Super One the other day.
73 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
These are the links to the pieces I wrote last March about Magistrate Herrera’s scandalous entertainment of those who are plaintiffs and defendants before her:
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/15/heres-another-one/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/15/heres-one-reason-why-its-in-the-public-interest-to-know-that-the-magistrate-dines-and-parties-with-jeffrey-pullicino-orlando/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/13/consuelo-and-robert-are-now-at-tarragon-at-st-pauls-bay/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/08/another-shot-to-the-foot/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/15/two-of-magistrate-herreras-birthday-party-guests-slag-it-out-in-court-while-she-presides/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/24/update-albert-mizzi-v-saviour-balzan/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/23/hey-robert-lets-have-a-party-for-all-those-appearing-before-me-in-court/
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/03/15/give-me-strength-robert-arrigo-too/
This proves much of what you said back then, except the back of a bus bit which is purely an opinion. She should now be made to step down as being another disgrace to the bench.
Now THIS is investigative journalism!
Well done, Daphne, for unearthing this. Maybe justice now has a hope of being served.
Daphne, you have done sterling service to the nation. If it had not been for you, the judiciary would have remained in a state of torpor; acidia for the latinists.
Or was it omerta?
From the contacts I have had it seems that very few people in the business were fully aware of the appalling state of affairs and the gravity of the situation. The mind boggles.
Justice should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Members of the judiciary are protected by the constitution and cannot be put down easily.
Fortunately, at least, it seems as if they can have their wings clipped. Again, thanks to you.
” I don’t give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell.”
Harry Truman.
Basically the Chief Justice took note of what was written on this blog and, without any fanfare, took the necessary measures. I don’t know how long he’ll last under a Labour government. He cannot be removed (in theory) but the judiciary will have to struggle to keep their independence.
[Daphne – That chief justice is now in Strasbourg. He is no longer chief justice, but a judge at the European Court of Human Rights.]
“…but now we know why her brother became hysterical on Super One the other day.”
Malta Today reported him as saying that: “A Chief Justice’s role is simply to preside over the Appeals Court, and never to be the general manager at the courts at the same time…” and “Herrera proposed a parliamentary committee, chaired by the Opposition and with two members from each side, to oversee the work of the judiciary.”
Maybe Jose Herrera was proposing that his committee will assign court cases to the magistrates?
He deserves a medal.
I meant the Chief Justice deserves a medal
Daphne, the Chief Justice should thank you for all of your research. It must have saved him a substantial amount of time. I’m pleased that justice has finally been implemented.
ALMOST implemented.
What Judge de Gaetano did was to protect the perception of the integrity of the Judiciary, to try and save the institution from the (justified) criticism of the people.
But now we expect the next step. Fine, the perception of integrity has been salvaged. Now we need REAL integrity to be saved.
For that to happen, Consuelo Scerri Herrera has to leave her post.
Otherwise, de Gaetano’s move will go utterly wasted.
And perhaps Jose’ Herrera’s intuition is partly right. Parliament should vote to dismiss Consuelo.
Needless to say, Joseph Muscat will not allow his party to vote against Consuelo because Jose’ must be holding him at ransom.
This is very much like Mintoff used to be held at ransom by Lorry Sant.
(Equating Jose’ Herrera with Lorry Sant is nothing new.)
Muscat has to find a way out of this conundrum.
He must rise to the occasion and be wise enough to realize that if he defends Consuelo, he keeps Jose’ quiet, but he loses his credibility with the public-at-large.
There might be an alternative, face-saving, strategy for Muscat. He might convince Jose’ – privately, in his mega-office at the PL GH – to tell his sister to leave and keep a low profile for a while.
He might cajole Jose’ promising him that as soon as Labour is back in power she’ll be reinstated and even promoted to Judge.
The promise being made behind the scenes, this scenario would save Muscat’s face with the electorate.
Or at least for the time being. Ultimately, Consuelo’s fate would be in the hands of the people.
If the people vote Muscat, they know they will be returning Consuelo to the bench, with even more powers than before.
I am contemplating this scenario, because I have lost all trust in George Abela’s leadership of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
I say this because now that de Gaetano’s move of more than six months ago has transpired, it is very clear that the Commission is simply taking notes, hoping that mors omnia solvit (mors in the metaphorical sense, of course).
To my understanding, de Gaetano’s move should not only have been noted by the Commission but acted upon.
If really de Gaetano’s move is unprecedented, the Commission should have pondered on its significance. On why the Chief Justice decided to take such a decision and implement it. The Chief Justice was very firmly, though silently, passing a strong judgment on Scerri Herrera’s behaviour.
The Chief Justice, if I am not mistaken, is also the Vice-President of the Commission.
That the Commission did not act on the cue given it by its own Vice-President can only mean one thing. That it is in the hands of its President, George Abela, the same man who godfathered Scerri Herrera’s appointment to Magistrate and whose son and daughter-in-law seem to be habitues of Scerri Herrera’s parties… in other words someone with a vested interest to see that nothing happens to his protegee.
In sum, the Commission will do nothing.
Instead it should. Because if this case goes on and on, and the lying on oath is further underlined, emphasised, accentuated and highlighted – as is happening – the fatalities will be on an even bigger scale. Not only Scerri Herrera’s head will roll (metaphorically, of course), but the Judiciary in its entirety will get bogged down in so much mud, filth and mire that there will be (another) constitutional crisis.
Let those who have understanding, reckon…
“If she told us that she thinks there is nothing wrong in entertaining those who are plaintiffs and defendants before her, then she is going to stick to that line and justice be damned…”
Moreover, Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera also thinks that there is nothing wrong in signing a promise of sale (konvenju) with Dr. Carmelo Galea to purchase a property in Msida for Lm175,000 (Test Kuntratt tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2005 – 124036/2005) when she was presiding court cases in Gozo in which DR. CARMELO GALEA HIMSELF WAS A PARTY.
Only four weeks after signing this konvenju with Dr. C. Galea, Magistrate Scerri Herrera gave a court decree accepting Dr. C. Galea’s request to sell ‘a million Maltese Liri’ villa in Gozo (part of a bequest of which Dr. C. Galea was a testamentary executor) to a partner of his in a company called Gozowide Properties Ltd (Registration No. C 5931) to the exclusion of other interested parties who had previously petitioned the Court to purchase the same property.
MALTESE JUSTICE A LA CARTE.
If your work doesn’t deserve Gieh ir-Repubblika I don’t know what does.
How could this travesty have escaped comment? Or has no other journalist got your balls?
They are journalists only in name.
Thank you for your sterling journalism. Why have the mainstream media not picked up on this important news? Why are they so afraid of Labour? I can’t see them burning the Times building again. I think they learned their lesson.
The media are failing the nation by looking the other way. This news should be the cover story of both The Times and The Malta Independent newspapers.
This news SHOULD HAVE BEEN the cover story of both The Times and The Malta Independent … way back in April!
Congratulations Daphne. This makes that ‘criminal’ case against you rather obsolete now.
It is a relief to know that there is a ray of hope in our justice system.
I only hope that the hassle you went through this year was worth it.
If it were me, the above news would cover a decade of hassle.
The taste of victory is indeed sweet, and, more importantly, the positive outcome you achieved through your blog.
Leaving out who researched the matter in the first place – the removal of the cases has news value. It’s strange how no lawyer who frequents the law courts ever mentioned the matter.
Do bear in mind that many lawyers have a vested interest in the matter, hence their silence, despite their otherwise being vociferous.
‘ An interesting aside is that, when being cross-examined in the criminal defamation suit she instigated against me, Consuelo Herrera claimed – indeed, swore on oath – that she had no idea who Kurt Farrugia is, that she only knows about him because of what I write, and that all she knows about Maltastar is that it is “something in the computer”. ‘
– EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE BUT ISN’T THAT PERJURY?
No. She can always say that she mistook him for Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Cassar.
AHA…….. in that case she is due for a check-up at the ophthalmologist.
Chief Justice Vincent de Geatano is a just man and I’m glad that I had the pleasure to get to know him.
Deafening silence = oxymoron
Maltese investigative journalism = ditto
Neutral non biased investigative journalism is sorely missing in tiny Malta. Notwithstanding all the negative attributes forwarded to you, it seems that you had the last laugh. May others follow your example so that finally we can have a democratic society in which the media fulfills its true role.
Maltastar’s comments would be interesting.
No need to wait till tomorrow to watch Bondi+.
Gonzi today stated on Radio 101 that he would not let 69 people without a mandate on divorce to legislate on divorce.
There will be a referendum after a sane discussion in his party and in parliament. No dates. While he is still against divorce he’s ready to listen to all opinions about the subject.
[Daphne – Are you sure you heard correctly? It’s been made clear already that you can’t have a referendum after a bill is discussed and voted on by parliament. And thinking logically, the solution to legislators who have no popular mandate to legislate for divorce is to give those legislatos a mandate in the next general election.]
John Schembri is right –
“Sunday, 17th October 2010 – 11:52CET
Updated: Decision is not on divorce but on marriage and the family – PM
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said this morning that he was committing himself to eventually get to a genuine decision on divorce but this had to follow an open and mature debate. He said that it was the electorate who should decide on the issue.
Reiterating his position against, the Prime Minister said he wanted to listen to those who were in favour but he also expected them to be willing to listen to him.
The issue, Dr Gonzi said, was a serious one because it affected marriage and the family which was the most precious thing of humanity.
“I rebel within myself when I see people who want to cut corners on such a matter,” he said.
The Prime Minister said that although he would not accept a guillotine on the divorce debate, the issue could not be thrown under the carpet and an open and mature discussion was important.
This was an issue of conscience and to ensure that the best decisions for the common good were taken, a debate has to take place.
Such a discussion was currently taking place within the Nationalist Party and also at a national level.
Dr Gonzi, said that the current MPs did not have a mandate to take a decision on such a matter so the debate was even more important. However, there was a bill on Parliament’s agenda which had to be addressed at some point.
The debate in Parliament should follow that in the country when MPs would have the chance to express themselves.
“We will then see what the next step should be,” he said.
Dr Gonzi insisted that to stop the discussion currently taking place would be a big mistake and the issue had to be tackled with profound consultation.
“We will not be deciding on divorce but on marriage and the family.
“So we have to let the debate mature and only then take our decision.
“My commitment is to take a decision but this decision has to be genuine and mature,” he said.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101017/local/pm-promises-to-eventually-take-decision-on-divorce
[Daphne – There is no mention of a referendum here, either. Since when does ‘popular mandate’ mean a referendum, when it has always meant a general election? The fact that parliament does not have a popular mandate to legislate for divorce now does not meant it will not have a popular mandate to do so after the general election in two years’ time. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why the words ‘the decision must be taken by the people’ have been interpreted by one and all as being a reference to a referendum, rather than a general election and an electoral pledge.]
Gonzi is being intentionally vague. First he uses JPO to kite-fly the ‘referendum’ idea. Now he stays away from using the R word without refuting JPO’s statements. It’s Gonzi’s very hot potato.
That’s the gist of what he said.
The Times watered down the referendum part.
“Dr Gonzi, said that the current MPs did not have a mandate to take a decision on such a matter so the debate was even more important.”
[Daphne – A popular mandate doesn’t necessarily mean a referendum. It invariably means a general election.]
“Id-deċiżjoni dwar id-dħul tad-divorzju għandha tkun tal-elettorat u tingħata t-trattament serju li jixirqilha. Dan sostnieh il-PM Lawrence Gonzi waqt intervista fuq Radio 101 fejn sostna li ma jaqbilx ma’ min qed jipprova jaqta’ l-kantunieri d-diskussjoni jaqtagħlha rasha.”
http://www.maltarightnow.com/?module=news&at=+Id%2Dd%26%23295%3Bul+tad%2Ddivorzju+g%26%23295%3Bandu+jing%26%23295%3Bata+trattament+serju+%2D+PM+Lawrence+Gonzi&t=a&aid=99823650&cid=19
I understood him as saying that our parliamentarians and political parties have not raised the issue of divorce during election time, so they were not given the ‘popular mandate’ to legislate on this hot issue.
[Daphne – Exactly. But they are free to do so in the next election. Look at it with commonsense: there is no point having a referendum on divorce before 2013 for the simple and obvious reason that there would be no time, after a referendum, to legislate for divorce before 2013. What is the point of having a referendum when you don’t have time to legislate? Just stick it in the 2013 electoral programme and legislate afterwards – with that popular mandate.]
Fenech Adami is no God and his comment should not be taken as the end of the matter. This parliament has NO MANDATE to discuss or even enact any laws on divorce.
Call a general election and put divorce on the agenda and that would be the time to call for a referendum.
Daphne, you repeat your view that the “decision by the electorate” means a mandate at a general election. But in your view, what does the PM mean when he says he will have a discussion by the MPs and then the matter will be subject to popular mandate? What is that supposed to mean and how would it work?
Normally, when the electorate votes on a matter, the matter is then drafted into a law and discussed in Parliament, but only after the decision by the electorate.
I will seek an explanation of this in Bondi+ today.
[Daphne – So will I.]
Why have so many lawyers kept this order by the Chief Justice so quiet? I can understand the magistrate’s reluctance to trumpet her removal from all these cases but surely, in the interest of justice, all the other lawyers involved in the suits should have spoken up.
On one hand I am full of admiration towards the Chief Justice, on the other I feel let down by people in the know who let this piece of important information slip by the attention of the public.
Daphne, was it your instinct that made you reseach the fate of these cases?
[Daphne – No, it was commonsense. I knew they were being heard by Consuelo Herrera because I had researched them and written about them. So when I researched them all again and found that they were ALL showing up as being heard by Magistrate Vella, there could only have been one explanation: they had been taken away from her. From then on, it was just a matter of finding out how and when they were taken away.]
Prosit Daphne. Due to you we have moved towards a better justice system. May other journalisits follow your example.
There is a case of Albert Mizzi vs Saviour Balzan of Malta Today. So finally I do hope that Albert Mizzi’s case shall be brought up and judged with fairness and that this rag of Malta Today will have to pay through their nose.
This is “honest” journalism
It would have been very interesting if John Bundy started his ‘Affari Taghna’ show with this news item. I thought he was different. But like Xarabank they seem not to have heard it. Much of the same, and I feel very disappointed. He should keep on singing his song. Though now he is part of the mouse.
[Daphne – John Bundy has become one of Consuelo Herrera’s keyrings or handbags. He is seen regularly socialising with her and Robert Musumeci. That’s why Musumeci was one of his first guests on his new Super One chatshow. This whole set-up has become a ridiculous circus of wheels within wheels: Robert Musumeci interviews Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando on Smash. John Bundy interviews Robert Musumeci on Super One. Saviour Balzan gives Robert Musumeci a column and plenty of ‘positive’ exposure to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. And they all protect Consuelo Herrera.]
John Bundy is another hasbeen out for survival.
Hi Daphne, whenever I read your blogs and in particular those regarding the Labour trio of lawyers, Toni, Anglu and Jose, I cannot but agree what another hell we will go through if God forbid, Labour is elected to government and two of these three are given the porfolio of justice and interior affairs. It will certainly be a farce.
Jose Herrera and the other two lawyers are committing so many errors by their words and actions in their political career, that nobody could possible have faith in these people.
“It will certainly be a farce”: Far from it. It would be a real tragedy. Just thinking about it sends shivers down my spine.
“sends shivers down my spine” – Not just, but I’m paralysed by fear of the Socialists being elected. The more I read and find out about their real bad intentions and their incompetence at making policies the worst my fear gets!
This saga is becoming disturbingly gripping. How come that we did not hear a single word if action was taken by the chief justice last APRIL? Something does not make sense, or everyone is blind. It seems that we arrived to the same place that we left 20 years ago. Anyone remember, “Trid kukkarda hamra f`gieh il-biza`?”
“69” people without a mandate on divorce to legislate on divorce. Wishful thinking methinks…..smut apart!
isa tara ja mahmuga l-int lankunu fil gvern xnghamlulek ja nittiena ja muqrana isa tara isa tara tal belt hadt ma se jahfirilek hadt isa tara stenna ha tigi l’elezioni u tara xnghamlulek inqaxruk hajja ntuk in nar ax ma thallix lil jose xghamillek aliex dil hdura kolla? kolla ejra din tejr al jose u al ohtu ax ma tmurx tinhasel mil hmieg l-ghandek ja mahmuga u halllina tridx?
int qed tahseb li tal belt se nahfruhilek? dil hdura kolla ma tifel ta laffari tieghu bhal jose? u ma tarax kemm int bahnana isa tkun taf lada ta l’elezioni ibqa d dar mistohbijja ax jekk insibuk barra taf xnghamlulek? hallih lil jose ja mahmuga kollok kemm int hallih jose tifel kwiet u jahdem ghal beltin u mela tigi int u tghamilu l hsara al xejn b xejn… hallih trid?
Palestina, hallija xbin lil-Daphne. U hallik milli toqod tajjarha mahmuga – mela daqs dak sapun li tela mill-Migra l-Ferha, l-Imtahleb, jista jkun li dik ma nhaslitx?
U l-affari tieghi halliha, Palestina. Issa John Bundy ghandu l-affari tieghu fuq il-One, oqod ara dik.
Biddlu l-emblema u n-nies, le.
tibza hux igibom tieghi? u hallina qed tbul tahtek bil biza isa tara wara l’elezioni li jmis xnghamlulek ingizzuk u la jose ikun mninstru tal justizia izjed tbul ma saqajk nittiena muqrana
Palestina, ghal li jista jkun kellek permess minn Jose, il-futur ministru tal-gustizzja, biex tikteb lil Daphne b’dan il-moghod, u ssemmi ismu fl-istess hin?
hja nejdlek xbin jien u jose hobza w sikina ok? int xi mahmug iehor bhal dinnittina thawn fuq?
Jason, just a word of advice: when you count your chickens, don’t forget to add yourself.
Somehow, Palestina’s obnoxious writings are too familiar and are continuing a trend started in Mintoff’s days.
se taqbad mal perit isa? qabda hodor imnejjkin min mohjkom
Of course such a case has never occurred before (transfering cases from one magistrate to another) – this is because it was assumed that magistrates is impartial.
By this, the Chief Justice told Magistrate Herrera that he believes she cannot be impartial in those particular cases…..and I BELIEVE HE IS PERFECTLY RIGHT.
[Daphne – He might also have done it to protect the PERCEPTION of justice.]
On the other hand, what cheek Magistrate Herrera must have to stay put. Any person with a backbone would have immediately resigned after the Chief Justice took such a decision.
That decision speaks volumes, and implies a lot. Can we get a fair judgement from Magistrate Herrera’s court?
The best item in The Sunday Times today is an interview with Giovanni Bonello.
He made an interesting assertion: only in states with an Anglo-Saxon legal tradition are magistrates and judges selected by the government. In Italy, France, Spain and Germany, to to become a judge you have to study and pass exams to take that career path.
Looking forward to a debate on this and it being included in the electoral manifesto of both parties. I’m not holding my breath for it to happen though. Nobody likes losing power and parliament would feel weak if this influence is removed.
I don’t agree that one should become a magistrate simply by sitting for an exam. As we are seeing in Malta, it takes a lot more than that to make a good magistrate.
So you don’t think that a psychiatrist should sit for exams either? It’s a career move that requires a different set of skills beyond those s/he studied to become a doctor. Bonello makes a very similar argument in regard of magistrates and judges.
Re my previous comment and to your comment that perception might have been the case, I quote, “Justice has not only be seen to be done, but also to be done”.
“There might be an alternative, face-saving, strategy for Muscat. He might convince Jose’ – privately, in his mega-office at the PL GH – to tell his sister to leave and keep a low profile for a while.”
Fat chance…….More like a Roland Freisler act!
Well done, Daphne. Keep it up!
The silence of the Maltese media speaks volumes. Truly, our values are mixed up – we go after the whistleblower but leave the perpetrator to do whatever he or she likes.
Well done, Daphne.
Palestina’s attitude shows just what Joseph Muscat has inherited.
It also shows what he is cultivating.
Palestina – another monitor bully, hiding behind a screen.
eja buli ha naraw minhu bully u jinheba wara lis-screen ejdli min int ha naraw minhu bully bezzieh bewwiel
u int dahpne aqtaha itlaqlu lill-jose mandekx xi tridu ha tqabizilna ha nejdlek
Palestina has shown us who Jose Herrera mixes with.
Should the Police know of these threats?
How about some criticism for the person who has just given bail to a violent criminal involved in the HSBC hold up?
The criminal with a long record, no fixed address and a habit of shooting at Police. Given bail! And not by Consuelo Scerri Herrera.
How come this very important issue was not mentioned in the media? Prosit tassew Daphne.
Another “get out” polite hint by a new judge!