An officer tasked with arresting a police inspector over suspicions of leaking information to Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers recalled that his first reaction was to claim that he was being targeted “in revenge”.
Elton Taliana, the police inspector who was targeted by a search and arrest warrant on the day of his promotion to the rank of superintendent in January, was subsequently suspended from the corps pending criminal proceedings over the alleged leaks.
He is pleading not guilty.
The events of that day were described in court on Thursday when Graziella Muscat Buhagiar, a superintendent from the People and Standards Unit responsible for enforcing discipline, was summoned to testify in the proceedings.
“I tried to keep it as low-profile as possible,” explained the witness, adding that, for that purpose, she had gone in plainclothes so as not to make much of a show when first calling at the Birkirkara police station.
Since Taliana was not there, the superintendent and her assistant proceeded to his home.
They were let in by Taliana’s mother and were welcomed into the kitchen for a private chat with the officer.
“Look Elton. Do you have any idea who this person is,” the arresting officer had started off, showing Taliana a document downloaded from the police system bearing details of Julian Hofstra, a convicted fraudster at the centre of the information allegedly leaked to Fenech’s lawyers.
“This is some revenge,” Taliana had promptly reacted, looking at the paper and seeming rather troubled.
But the female officer sought to reassure him that that was not the case, prodding him to focus just on her question.
Although the name and the reference to “Amsterdam” on the document did ring a bell, Taliana could not recall clearly, testified Muscat Buhagiar.
She had then informed Taliana that she would have to confiscate his mobile phone and escort him to her superior, assistant commissioner Stephen Gatt, who was handling the investigation.
Before seizing the mobile, she had allowed the inspector to make a call to cancel a meeting that was due in half an hour.
Reaching police headquarters, they had gone through the back entrance “to keep it as low profile as possible,” Muscat Buhagiar explained.
Asked by Taliana’s lawyer, Arthur Azzopardi, whether she had requested the arrest warrant, the officer said that she had only executed the warrant.
“Do you note anything missing or faulty with that warrant?”asked Azzopardi, making reference to a copy of the official document shown to the witness.
“At a glance, it seems to be the same one. But I can’t recall all the details.”
Questioned further as to why she had not registered the arrest at the nearest police station, according to standard legal procedure, the witness explained that she did not feel she ought to escort Taliana to a police station.
“To avoid embarrassment. I headed immediately to the investigating officer. I would not humiliate him in such a manner,” she stressed.
“Did you register the arrest or inform the Birkirkara police station,” the lawyer persisted.
“No. I even went plainclothes,” the witness insisted.
“Were you trained to execute arrest warrants,” Azzopardi finally asked.
“I cannot recall if I was specifically trained. I’ve been in the corps for 15 years,” the superintendent replied.
Her assistant testified next, confirming the sequence of events.
“Where you wearing your uniform,” asked Taliana’s lawyer.
“Yes,” the officer replied.
A police sergeant, tasked with running a check on the Schengen System under the name of Julian Hofstra testified that he had returned his results to his superior via email.
A foreign witness was then called to testify but the hearing continued behind closed doors, after the court, presided over by magistrate Nadine Lia, deemed as legitimate a request put forward by the defence.
The case continues in October.