Justice was finally done when a magistrate recently acquitted a man charged with theft, fraud and circulation of counterfeit currency because of lack of evidence.
Paradoxically, throughout the proceedings spanning almost two decades, neither the court, nor the attorney general or the police did much to ensure that justice was seen to be done.
The police produced just one witness, the prosecuting officer himself, although the attorney general had indicated others. It does not result from the judgment whether the attorney general sought explanations from the police or, indeed, put pressure on them to produce such witnesses.
“For some reason or other,” commented Magistrate Victor Axiaq, “for long years the prosecuting officer persisted in his ways and the court allowed him to do so until, finally, it decided to put off the case sine die.”
The three authorities which, in Malta’s judicial system, are empowered to enforce the law – the courts, the attorney general and the police – failed miserably.
To function effectively, the rule of law depends a lot on the performance of these three authorities or institutions.
The case in question may not be that common, admittedly. However, it manifestly demonstrates that the system of checks and balances, even in the justice supply chain, can easily go awry.
It bears giving a brief timeline of how things unfolded. The accused was arraigned in September 2004 and, in February 2006, the prosecution said there was only one other witness. However, that witness was unwilling to testify since he was facing criminal proceedings.
Eight years from the arraignment, the court gave the prosecution one last chance to close its case. However, nothing changed and, a year later, the case was put off indefinitely.
In 2019, the case was assigned to a new magistrate and the new police officer who had taken over the case asked for hearings to continue. By that time, the sole witness originally indicated by the prosecution had died. Still, not much happened and, last January, the defence asked the court to declare the statement made by the accused in 2004 without any legal assistance inadmissible in evidence against him.
Judgment was finally handed down on March 15, 2023, that is 19 years and nine months after the accused was taken to court.
The original prosecuting officer in the case was disgraced former assistant police commissioner Ian Abdilla.
A former head of the police economic crimes unit, he had been suspended on half pay just under two years ago, only days after the findings of a public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia were published.
Abdilla had skyrocketed from the post of police inspector in 2015 to head of the ECU and assistant commissioner within the space of two years. Whether he was promoted because he was a competent officer or due to other reasons may surface in time but his performance in the fraud case mentioned above surely does not speak highly about him.
Regrettably, this was not the only instance of court cases being botched for some reason or other, including unexplained delays. In fact, the presiding magistrate noted that this was “another classic example of unnecessarily dragged-out proceedings”.
This case involved not just one but all three main elements that make the justice system work.
Urgent and robust action must be taken to avoid a reputation because, as Chief Justice Emeritus Silvio Camilleri once warned, if the administration of justice edifice collapses only its ruins remain.