Court annuls €61k award to ex police superintendent

The Constitutional Court has annulled a decision by which a former police superintendent was awarded €61,000 in damages and ordered that the case be reheard after ruling that the judgment handed down by the court of first instance was deemed not reasoned.

Raymond D’Anastas had applied for promotion in August 2016 and subsequently went before the Ombudsman and then the courts after being passed over, claiming discrimination.

The State Advocate and the Police Commissioner appealed the judgment while D’Anastas filed a cross appeal.

In their appeal, the State Advocate and the Police Commissioner said the first court’s decision lacked clear reasoning and contained contradictions. They also challenged the finding that D’Anastas’ rights had been violated.

In his cross appeal, D’Anastas claimed he deserved higher compensation.

D’Anastas joined the Police Force on December 14, 1979. He became an inspector on March 15, 1990 and a superintendent on October 11, 2006. In August 2016, a call for new assistant commissioners was issued, and 20 candidates applied. The interviews were held on January 17, 2017.

On June 15, 2017, 10 candidates were chosen and appointed assistant commissioners. Two more candidates were appointed in August 2018, and an additional two candidates were appointed in January 2020.

D’Anastas was deemed to have failed the interview and was not appointed.

The former police superintendent felt he should have gotten a better mark, arguing that it was already known he would not be promoted. He first petitioned the Public Service Commission, but it was dismissed. He then asked the Ombudsman to investigate the case.

The Ombudsman had found the promotions process to be vitiated and defective, with then Police Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar having chosen people on the basis of personal trust.

Ombudsman Anthony Mifsud had urged the police to issue a fresh call for promotions and recommended compensation of €15,000 to D’Anastas for moral damages. The police corps, however, ignored that recommendation. D'Anastas then sued the state and the police chief for damages.

The First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, ruled that it had been sufficiently proven that during the selection process, some candidates had been favoured over others, not just the plaintiff.

The court of first instance had awarded D’Anastas €61,000 in damages, and the judgment was appealed.

The Constitutional Court considered the argument raised by the State Advocate and the Police Commissioner, in which they argued that the judgment was null and void because of a lack of motivation.

If this ground is upheld, the Constitutional Court observed that the records of the case would have to be sent back to the court of first instance for the case to be decided.

It held that the appealed decision and the excerpts from the Ombudsman report showed that there were no reasons given for the conclusion that D’Anastas had suffered discrimination.

The Constitutional Court held that the court of first instance had to explain its motivations, and if it had to base its decision on the Ombudsman’s conclusions, it had to explain why it agreed to them.

It also held that the court of first instance did not indicate the facts which led it to rule that the selection process was carried out when the applicants had already been chosen.

The Constitutional Court said that it could not conclude that the court of first instance premised the reasons on which its decision was based, according to the law.

This, however, did not mean that the Constitutional Court deemed D’Anastas’ allegations untrue.

It clarified that the decision was null and the issue was still pending, as it annulled the decision and sent the case back to the First Hall of the First Court for the case to be decided.

The Constitutional Court was presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, and Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Anthony Ellul.

Lawyer David Bonello assisted D’Anastas. Lawyer Miguel De Gabriele from the State Advocate’s Office appeared for the appellants.