A police inspector who was detained under a procedurally defective warrant on the day he was due for a long-delayed promotion, has been awarded €20,000 in damages by a court.

Elton Taliana took his grievances before the constitutional courts when he was suspended from the corps after his superiors suspected that he might have leaked details about an ongoing investigation concerning a convicted fraudster.

Julian Hofstra, a Dutch national, had been linked to alleged secret recordings related to the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Taliana was suspected of having leaked information to the lawyers assisting Yorgen Fenech, who is accused of complicity in the murder.

Having successfully battled his way through years of legal proceedings since 2013, Taliana was one step away from earning a promotion to the rank of superintendent when officers knocked at his door to execute a search and arrest warrant issued by a magistrate.

On the strength of that warrant, his home was searched, personal possessions including his mobile phone were seized and he was taken into custody, with his name logged in the “detainee book.”

Taliana protested his innocence from the start, and filed breach of rights proceedings, claiming that the search and arrest warrant was not drawn up according to the procedure prescribed by law.

His lawyers pointed out several defects in that official document issued under magisterial authority, including the fact that the information supplied by the requesting officer to obtain the warrant was “incomplete and deceptive.”

The warrant also did not conform to the requisites laid down by the relative provisions of the Criminal Code.

When delivering judgment the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction observed that Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gatt failed to tell the duty magistrate that Taliana was not the only person who had accessed Hofstra’s profile on the police system.

The magistrate was told that Taliana had leaked personal data and information about an ongoing investigation when in reality, the inspector did not even have access to such information concerning the investigation.

When asked why he had omitted such details, Gatt explained that all other persons who accessed the particular profile worked in the unit handling that investigation.

By his own admission, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed that not all information had been given to the magistrate when requesting the warrant, observed Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey.

The law clearly stated that police are to give the duty magistrate “full information.” The legislator imposed this condition to ensure that when deciding whether to issue a search and arrest warrant, the magistrate had “a clear and complete picture of all the facts available to the police at that stage.”

This was similar to the oath administered to a witness who swore to tell “the whole truth,” went on the judge.

A court needed to have “the whole truth rather than part”, so as to be able to reach the best possible decision in a just and equitable manner.

When analysing the evidence put forward, the court observed that it was rather suspicious for someone not involved in the investigation to access that profile. That might explain the urgency underlying the police action.

But Taliana was authorised by rank to access that information which after all was basic personal data found on a person’s ID card. The duty magistrate should have been told about this so as to have a far more clear picture of all facts before deciding whether to sign the warrant.

In light of such circumstances, the resulting warrant was defective and thus breached Taliana’s fundamental right to protection from arbitrary arrest and detention.

That right was further breached by the fact that the warrant failed to state the reason for the arrest. That was “a grave shortcoming,” particularly when considering that two high-ranking officers involved in the arrest gave conflicting versions.

One said that Taliana’s arrest was sought because he allegedly leaked information to a third party, whereas the other officer said that the reason for arrest was the fact that Taliana had accessed the police system.

The court lacked the peace of mind that Taliana was well-informed about the reason for his arrest.

When awarding damages, the court declared that it could not ignore Taliana’s claims about the various challenges and persecution he had endured at the hands of his superiors, especially in recent years.

The applicant had claimed that this latest episode was “another attack” to block his promotion.

The court also observed that in 2019 an investigation by the Ombudsman had concluded that police authorities “rushed to punish the complainant [Taliana].”

This was a similar scenario, observed Mr Justice Spiteri Bailey.

The police authorities rushed to obtain an arrest warrant right when Taliana was expecting his promotion.

He had earned that right (for promotion) after his superiors created obstacles by resorting to actions that were ultimately rubbished by the courts.

Taliana’s “turbulent history” was taken into consideration by the court when declaring that the officer’s rights were breached and that the Police Commissioner was responsible for that breach.

Since the warrant was illegal, Taliana’s arrest, detention, interrogation, search and seizure of personal items were all null.

The court awarded him €20,000 in non-pecuniary damages, payable by the Commissioner who was further ordered to revoke any decision concerning Taliana’s promotion in so far as it was triggered by his arrest.

Taliana’s name was also to be struck off from the “detainee book” where it had been unlawfully recorded and a copy of this judgment was to be inserted into any proceedings against Taliana still pending before the courts.

Lawyers Joseph Zammit Maempel and Eve Borg Costanzi assisted the applicant.

'Gafa’ should resign immediately

In a reaction to the court's decision, Robert Aquilina, who heads the local branch of the Falcone Foundation, said this was a historic victory for Inspector Taliana and honest members of the police force.

It was also another certificate of persecution and injustice by Commissioner Angelo Gafa’.

"Decency requires Gafa’ to shoulder his responsibility and resign immediately," Aquilina said.