Lawyer David Gatt awarded €300,000 for being kicked out of police force in 2001
Back in 2001, Gatt, along with two other police officers, were dismissed by the force over allegations linking them with criminals
Former policeman turned lawyer David Gatt has been awarded over €300,000 in damages after he was forced to retire from the police force over 20 years ago, despite an earlier court judgment annulling the decision to remove him from the force.
Gatt, together with Michael Buttigieg and Ivan Portelli, were dismissed by the force in 2001 over allegations they had links with criminals.
David Gatt filed a case for damages after he was forced into retirement instead of being reinstated as a police inspector after the Court of Appeal confirmed the court of first instance’s decision declaring it null, invalid and without effect.
Gatt became a police constable in January 1989. He became an inspector in December 1993 and served until 2001. On May 3, 2001, Gatt received a letter from then police commissioner George Grech in which he was informed that he was being removed from the police force with immediate effect.
Gatt's name has recently resurfaced in court, after the lawyer of the men accused of supplying the bomb that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia requested the testimonies of former Chris Cardona and lawyer Gatt. Convicted hitman Vince Muscat recently testified that Gatt was allegedly a middleman in an aborted plan to murder journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2015.
What has happened since 2001?
Given that he had been over 12 and a half years of service, Gatt was also eligible for a service pension, which was calculated. The then officer requested the court to review the decision by which he was removed from the police force.
The case was decided on April 27, 2009, and the court declared the decision null, invalid and without effect. It also ordered that he be reinstated in the position before he received the letter. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by then prime minister Eddie Fenech Adami, and the police commissioner and confirmed the judgment in September 2010.
Just over a month later, Gatt received a letter from the principal permanent secretary informing him that the judgment had to be executed and he had to be placed in the same position he was in before the letter informing him of his dismissal.
However, based on the documents received, it was in the public interest to force him into retirement. Gatt filed a warrant of prohibitory injunction on November 1, 2010, to stop the respondents from terminating his employment. It was upheld.
He also filed another case claiming that his fundamental rights had been breached when it was decided to take disciplinary proceedings against him, again. The case was dismissed in October 2016 and the decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in May 2022.
The lawyer eventually filed a case for damages, claiming loss of income and allowances, unused leave, loss of work on Sundays and public holidays, as well as bonuses after he was forced into retirement.
In his reply, the police commissioner said that in February during the investigation of the €2.33 million hold-up on Group 4 security in 2000, Gatt’s name was mentioned in conversations between notorious individuals known to the police.
On Monday, the First Hall of the Civil Court presided over by Mr Justice Toni Abela, said that without going into the merits of whether the police commissioner at the time was right in removing Gatt, the way the police commissioner acted against the plaintiff was “unprofessional”.
The court observed that similarly, the Public Service Commissioner should have been aware to avoid such cases.
The court observed that in the separate proceedings, Gatt had already won when the court ruled that the PSC did not follow its regulations. Despite the courts’ rulings, the police commissioner still took disciplinary proceedings against Gatt and considered him retired.
The court cast doubt on whether the regulations allowed the police commissioner to start proceedings afresh against the plaintiff since the previous order was clear.
It observed that if the regulations allowed for such behaviour, then there would be a way for the police commissioner to circumvent an order with greater ease. It was also observed that Gatt did not appear before the PSC nor was he allowed to be heard, as provided for by the regulations.
It also emerged that in a hearing before the PSC held on March 22, 2001 which was attended by the police commissioner, when it was concluded that the highly confidential information “left no doubt to the commission that it would not be in the interest of the police force and the public interest to allow these officers to remain in the force” Gatt was not present.
The court said it was surprised how the highest authorities, which are meant to be the cornerstone of the rule of law principle, have breached the law so blatantly. It held that the police commissioner and the PSC cannot cut corners and not follow procedure.
After taking into account the circumstances of the case, the unorthodox way in which disciplinary proceedings were taken against Gatt and other institutional anomalies, the court upheld his claim for damages.
The First Hall of the Civil Court awarded Gatt €321,021 in damages. Mr Justice Toni Abela presided. Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo assisted Gatt. Lawyer Miguel Degabriele appeared on behalf of the State Advocate.