Rough and tumble – analysis of a mishandled investigation

When Nicholas Azzopardi regained consciousness in a hospital bed in April 2008, his first action was to inform family members (his brother Reno and father Joseph) that he had been the victim of gross police brutality.

"Tawni xebgha tal-beati Pawli (they beat me to within an inch of my life)," Azzopardi said on his deathbed, in an impromptu interview that was filmed by his brother, and later broadcast by this newspaper. A few hours later Nicholas Azzopardi was dead... but not before supplying his version of events to the inquiring magistrate, Anthony Vella.

Azzopardi was initially brought in for questioning over domestic violence allegations, only to be arrested on child abuse charges brought against him by his estranged wife... who transpires to have been present at the depot throughout the interrogation proceedings, which lasted several hours.

According to his owns deathbed claims, Azzopardi was 'taunted' into an reaction by interrogating officers - in particular Adrian Lia, who transpired to have a questionable past (see box) - only to be savagely beaten by two unmarked officers in blue uniforms, then thrown while semi-conscious off the stretch of bastion allegedly referred to as 'Tal-Klandestini' by the police.

Were it not for the victim's deathbed declaration, and the fact that the family has since assiduously pursued their own personal quest for justice, Azzopardi's claims of police brutality would probably have been buried with him.

As things stand, however, the authorities found themselves publicly accused of a highly suspicious sequence of events leading to the death of a person as a result of injuries incurred while in police custody. At this point, the same authorities which had hitherto glossed over the severity of the implications (the CMRU report, for instance, had limited itself only to stating that Azzopardi had "seriously injured himself while trying to escape") was now under pressure to investigate.

The inquiry was entrusted to Magistrate Antonio Vella, while a separate internal police inquiry was conducted by the police's own internal affairs unit - answerable at the time to Inspector Michael Cassar (Commissioner Rizzo was at the time in hospital being treated for a long-term health issue).

Both investigations eventually concluded that there was no proof of any foul play on the part of the police.

However, fresh evidence has since surfaced that casts serious doubts on the findings of both inquiries - not least, the Prime Minister's extraordinary revelation in parliament last Wednesday that Azzopardi was one of 13 men (the other 12 consisting of irregular immigrants) to have likewise 'fallen' (or 'jumped') from the exact same stretch of bastion. 

It also transpires that the credibility of the main witness, Adrian Lia, was to say the least questionable - and that the original magisterial inquiry had managed to miss out on several important details: including the possibility, raised by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo in an article in today's edition, that the CCTV footage seen by both inquiries had been "heavily edited" (see front-page story).

Flaws in initial inquiry

Nor are these the only apparent procedural anomalies in an initial magisterial inquiry described by the family as "a cover-up aimed at exonerating the police" of all suspicion.

The first anomaly arose when Magistrate Vella asked Reno Azzopardi to hand over the footage he had taken of his own brother's deathbed statements - and proceeded to threaten him with prison in the event that he failed to comply.

Eventually a compromise was reached, which allowed the victim's brother to keep his own copy of the footage. But questions were raised (not least, by Reno Azzopardi) about the inquiry's apparent concern with acquiring the only shred of evidence pointing towards foul play. Likewise, it is unclear why the magistrate threatened Azzopardi with criminal repercussions, when he had committed no apparent crime by insisting on retaining a copy of what was ultimately his own personal property to begin with.

Elsewhere, Nicholas Azzopardi had told his family (and also Magistrate Vella) that he would be able to identify the unmarked police officials who allegedly assaulted him at the depot. Yet the inquiring magistrate did not record his own interview with the alleged victim - which in any case was carried out in the presence of Inspector Michael Cassar, who was separately conducting the police's internal investigation.

Nor did Vella arrange a police identification parade for Azzopardi to be able to identify his alleged aggressors, as would normally be expected under the circumstances. In fact, Azzopardi was never given this opportunity at all.

Commenting on these anomalies at the time, Labour MP Evarist Bartolo - whose parliamentary question this week elicited the information that 13 people had suffered similar fates at the police depot since 2002 - wrote that 'The version of the police officers implicated in the case was accepted uncritically, while Azzopardi and his family were treated with hostility'; and that 'Vella did not give due weight to what Azzopardi had to say just before he died when usually such statements ('articolo mortis') are considered indispensable to establish what happened'.

Elsewhere in his inquiry, Vella observed that Azzopardi - who was partly conscious at the time when he was first hospitalised following his 'fall' - had not alluded to police brutality at the time, and had only raised this issue in a private conversation with his family several days later.

However, this observation fails to take into account the following facts: Azzopardi was accompanied by the police at the time of his hospitalisation, and firmly believed that his life was still in danger (as he would later tell his family). Also, he emerged from an induced coma a week later to find himself alone with people he trusted.

Taken together, these two facts would explain why Azzopardi did not make his allegations public immediately at the first opportunity.

Doubts have also since been raised about Magistrate Vella's observation that Azzopardi's injuries were "compatible with a fall". This is strange for two reasons: one, if Azzopardi's injuries were compatible with a fall, they would also have been compatible with his own allegation that he had been thrown off the bastion.

Two, if Azzopardi was fully conscious while falling, he would almost certainly have sustained injuries to his lower arms - as a consequence of the natural human reaction of raising one's arms to protect one's head, neck and torso - and for much the same reason,  one would also expect breakages to the legs, especially the calf, knee and ankle areas.

Yet Azzopardi's grievous injuries were to the back, chest, head and one elbow - with only superficial injuries in other areas. This would be consonant with his claims to have received 'side-kicks' to the chest, back, head and arm. It would also fit the original allegation that he was unconscious at the time of the 'fall'.

CPT's doubts

Doubts about the magisterial inquiry were also raised in a separate report compiled by the United Nations Committee For the Preventiuon of Torture and Degrading Treatment in May 2008.

"After having examined the results of both the criminal investigation and the special inquiry, the CPT would like to underline the utmost importance of subjecting the events of 8 and 9 April 2008 to further analysis, with the aim of preventing any repetition of similar incidents."

At the time, the CPT was clearly unaware that there had been no fewer that 12 other 'similar incidents' - some of which occurred after Azzopardi's 'accident'. But it is clear from other parts of the report that the CPT was also dissatisfied with the investigators' approach to this issue.

"The fact that a special inquiry ordered by the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs was carried out in parallel to a criminal investigation is of some concern... this situation can potentially affect the integrity of he criminal investigation."

Even more specifically, the CPT sounded an alarm bell over "the police investigating the police".

"In [Azzopardi's] case... the magistrate in charge was exercising close and effective supervision of the police officers responsible for the operational conduct of the investigation. However, ideally, the latter persons should have been completely independent from the police force implicated".

Even more interesting than the CPT's objection was the official response of former minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici: "Since the Maltese Authorities firmly believe in the integrity of the investigating magistrate and of the Board of Inquiry, it does not feel there are any potential issues that may affect the outcome of the investigations."

Indeed, Mifsud Bonnici had so much faith in Magistrate Vella that when fresh doubts over his inquiry emerged earlier this year, he simply re-appointed him to conduct an investigation into his own earlier investigation: an arrangement that was obviously unacceptable to Azzopardi's surviving relatives.