Wrongly arrested man files constitutional appeal

Darryl Luke Borg – the man who in 2013 was wrongfully arrested for his alleged part in a hold up-up in Birkirkara – has filed a constitutional appeal, claiming that the First Court’s decision to dismiss his plea for compensation on an alleged breach of fundamental human rights was “unjust and incorrect.”

The case goes back to August 8, 2013, when Borg, of Birkirkara, was wrongly prosecuted for a hold-up in Birkirkara the night before. A day later another man, Roderick Grech, admitted to the crime and was handed a suspended sentence.

But despite the guilty plea of Grech, Borg was remanded in custody for another day. This, lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt held, breached Borg’s right against arbitrary arrest.

Subsequently, they filed for compensation, complaining that their client should not have been arraigned in the first place or denied bail, and that the police should have released Borg a day earlier, on 8 August, when the police learned that Roderick Grech had admitted to committing the hold-up.

Last month, Borg’s application for compensation was dismissed by the Constitutional Court, which had ruled that Borg’s right against arbitrary arrest was not breached as the police “had not acted negligently, and the arrest was justified on grounds of reasonable suspicion.”

In an appeal filed against the Attorney General, the Director of Criminal Courts and Tribunals, and the Police commissioner, Borg's lawyers argued that the reasonable suspicion of the prosecution was not justified because CCTV footage clearly showed that it was not him.

Borg’s lawyer held that “for any reasonable suspicion to be justified, there must be clear and concrete proof,” and not circumstantial evidence.

“However, there could not have been any reasonable suspicion in Borg, because at the time he was at home. Moreover, the person who later admitted in court to have carried out the hold-up is considerably shorter and has a different stature than Darryl Luke Borg,” Borg's lawyers told the court.

Moreover, the plaintiff’s lawyers held that the CCTV footage and stills do not correspond with Darryl Luke Borg’s Facebook profile. The police had used Borg’s Facebook photo to confirm a resemblance between himself and the CCTV.

In its judgment last month, Mr Justice Tonio Mallia had argued that Borg’s arrest based on reasonable suspicion due to a tip-off and Borg’s criminal history, an argument disputed by Borg’s lawyers who have insisted that one’s criminal history should not be used to base an arrest but to further any suspicions.

Borg also argued that the police should have withdrawn criminal proceedings as soon as another man admitted to committing the crime. Instead, Borg remained under police custody for a day more.

"Darryl Luke Borg spent an extra day in prison after it was established that the police knew that a third party had admitted to the offence,” the plaintiff’s lawyers held.