Hit-and-run motorist insists on human rights’ breach

The man accused of having run over cyclist Clifford Micallef back in 2009 on the Coast Road outside the White Rocks complex, is appealing a constitutional court’s decision that threw out his request to have his police statement discarded from the acts of the case because he did not have legal assistance during interrogation.

In his appeal, Anthony Taliana, 26 of Hamrun, claims he had been a vulnerable 20-year-old at the time of the incident, and that he was not assisted by a lawyer when he was questioned on the hit-and-run that killed father-of-three Cliff Micallef on 30 July, 2009 at 5am.

Taliana is being charged in the Magistrates’ Court with the involuntary homicide of Micallef, drink-driving, driving a car without insurance cover and relapsing, after having already been convicted of dangerous driving.

Judge Joseph Azzopardi has already said it should be the magistrate hearing the case to decide on the admissibility of the police statement, and added that Taliana was not a vulnerable person and that his rights had not been breached.

The judge described Taliana as “arrogant” and added that had been repeatedly cautioned before the police statement was taken, clearly showing his statement was given voluntarily and without undue pressure.

The judge also said his allegation that the experts’ reports had breached his rights was “not factual”.

But in his appeal, Taliana is quoting statements by court expert Mario Scerri who was reported saying that he “kept pushing [Taliana] to tell us who he was with him [during the incident]. Then he got scared and told us that Natasha Chesney was there.”

Taliana is saying Scerri’s comment – replying to his lawyers during the compilation of evidence – showed that he had been scared during the questioning.

Taliana is arguing that at the time he had a clean police record, and was unfamiliar with police interrogations; that he was under shock and that his father had also been arrested at the time.

Taliana is also demanding that the reports of court experts Mario Buttigieg, Godwin Sammut and Mario Scerri are removed from the acts of the case as they are based on his police statement.

Forensic scientists found Taliana’s alcohol-blood level above the legal limit: Godwin Sammut found that a urine sample taken six hours after the accident showed 98 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine when the legal limit is 107 mg, but based on scientific assumptions and calculations, Taliana’s alcohol level in blood was above the legal 80mg per 100ml, which is the legal limit.

Sammut based his calculations on the fact that Taliana had admitted to drinking a dozen vodkas with coke before the accident.

Citing case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, Taliana is insisting that suspects must be afforded legal assistance as soon as they are deprived of their liberty.

“The lack of such provisions constituted a violation of the accused’s rights. Given the absence of assistance by counsel, who could provide legal advice and technical skills, the applicant could not make full and knowledgeable use of his rights,” Taliana’s appeal read.

“The ECHR holds legal assistance as a guarantee against self incrimination by suspects who at the time of questioning are under stress, especially when faced with complex criminal proceedings.”

Citing a judgement of 19 March 2014, his lawyers said the ECHR declared that legal assistance must be available at the very first questioning.

The Constitutional Appeal was signed by lawyers Michael and Lucio Sciriha.

An examination of Taliana’s social profile on website Hi5 at the time portrayed the accused as a ‘petrolhead’ with a love for fast cars, with photos showing him posing with a bottle of whiskey, in a re-enacted pose of Al Pacino’s legendary gangster movie ‘Scarface’ with a white powder displayed next to him.