An inmate at the prisons who claimed persecution at the hands of prison guards ever since “witnessing” a crime behind the facility's walls has failed in his bid to kickstart a magisterial inquiry into the matter.
Brian Vella, 41, who is serving life for the murder of an elderly St Luċija couple in 2000, filed an application in May requesting the launch of a magisterial inquiry into what he claimed was systematic terror, fear and torture behind bars.
Vella said he was targeted by a series of arbitrary disciplinary measures ever since he witnessed the commission of “an illicit and illegal” act on September 24, 2018.
On that day, he and his cell-mates had spotted prison guards carrying a dead inmate out of the facility, an event that was kept under wraps since, Vella claimed.
Yet, although “very serious”, such an allegation was unsupported by details necessary to identify the possible “suspect” as well as the “material subject” of the suspect crime, observed the magistrate when assessing whether Vella’s application merited further inquiry.
The applicant did not explain how he had reached the conclusion that the person carried by the guards was dead, he had not identified the guards by name or number and he failed to name his fellow cellmates at the time.
Although he was granted time to submit further details, Vella had failed to do so and consequently, the allegation about that suspect crime remained “totally vague”.
As for the alleged systematic inhuman treatment, the magistrate observed that running such a correctional institution necessarily called for a “system of discipline” as otherwise the situation would result in “total confusion”.
Such discipline was to be exercised in line with prison regulations, provided for under subsidiary legislation and thus sufficiently “clear and known”, Magistrate Charmaine Galea observed.
In terms of those regulations, the prison director held discretion that enabled him to handle each case on its own merits, since every case presented particular characteristics.
Such rules were necessary for the correctional facility to perform its functions in terms of law.
However, that discretion was to be exercised in a just and equitable manner, said the magistrate, noting that all measures which Vella claimed to have been subjected to fell within the ambit of those regulations.
Vella alleged that his privileges were restricted, he was transferred to a different division, stopped from his carpentry job and was ignored by prison authorities when on a two-day hunger strike.
He was also willing to confirm the existence and use, “several times”, of the “torture chair” mentioned recently in the media.
Vella’s claims were rebutted by the director in his written reply, explaining how Vella had forfeited certain privileges after defaulting on prison rules and that the inmate had been monitored by a nurse during his hunger strike.
As for the so-called “torture chair”, that was a measure of last resort used under professional advice to restrain a prisoner whose behaviour could result in self-harm, the director claimed.
On the basis of Vella’s application and the prison’s reply, the magistrate concluded that there was no face value evidence that any CCF official had knowingly inflicted mental or physical suffering upon the applicant.
Nonetheless, while turning down his request for a magisterial inquiry, the magistrate ordered a copy of the records to be served upon the Prison Monitoring Board.