Lawyer accuses police of brutalising suspect and destroying evidence

A lawyer has claimed that his client refused to sign a statement given to him by the police, as the inspector had refused to add the last words alleged to have been said, which were “had you not had sheep interrogating you, I would have broken more than your nose”.

Defence lawyer Robert Abela told the court that the policeman, listed as a witness to the statement, had broken the accused’s nose.

David John Calleja, a senior financial advisor, told Magistrate Marse Anne Farrugia that he was “absolutely not guilty” of biting a police officer after he was stopped for driving erratically.

The police had claimed that they could smell alcohol on his breath and arrested him when he refused to get out of the car. A struggle ensued as they bundled Calleja in the police car, with the accused allegedly biting the hand of one of the officers.

The police allege that in the ensuing struggle, Calleja bumped his head against the car window “in an attempt to get away”, opening a gash that caused blood to pour down his face.

The police statements claim that Calleja then spat blood in the face of three police officers and repeatedly kicked the driver’s seat.

Abela exhibited Calleja’s clothes together with a certificate from hospital which indicates that the accused had suffered a broken nose.

Inspector Sultana objected strongly to the clothes being exhibited and requested they be removed from the evidence, claiming they could have been contaminated.

Abela countered by giving an account of chain of custody of the evidence and accusing the inspector of trying to twist the facts.

“The prosecution objected to the exhibition of the accused’s clothes as they are covered in blood, blood caused by the beating he suffered at the hands of the police. The clothes confirm the injuries and the medical certificate confirms the injuries.”

Abela requested the court appoint a photographer to document the injuries of the accused and the interior of the police car but disagreed with the initial appointment by the court of medical doctor Mario Scerri, due to his long history of collaboration with the police in several investigations.

The prosecutor then told the court that the police vehicle involved was since cleaned, to the derision of the defence counsel.

“How compatible is this with the prosecution’s thesis?” Abela asked, noting that the location of the bloodstains could have proven the prosecution’s allegations.

The court expressed its full confidence in Dr. Scerri, adding that he had found evidence of police brutality in previous cases, however accepted the defence’s request, appointing ENT consultant Mr. Mario Said in Scerri’s staid.

Inspector Sultana objected to bail as “society had to learn that police are not there to suffer violence in the course of their duties”.

Abela said that the statement was not signed by the accused because the inspector had refused to add the last words alleged to have been said, which were “had you not had sheep interrogating you, I would have broken more than your nose”.

Abela pointed out to the court that the policeman who broke the accused’s nose was also listed as a witness to the accused’s statement.

He told the court that the blow was dealt as the accused, after being dragged in a headlock from his car and placed into the police car, had leaned forward to ask the driver why he was being arrested. The driver, who is not the policeman allegedly injured, elbowed him in the face, breaking his nose and bloodying the interior.

The court was told that the incident happened during the weekend and it is odd that the first thing that was done was the car was taken to be washed. “Faced with such a serious allegation in its regard it decides to destroy evidence”,

“How, in his statement, do we have the accused saying the driver broke his nose, and yet the policeman was not investigated or charged?” Abela asked.

In submissions on bail, Abela argued that the media, having heard only the police version so far, had portrayed this as a case of a man attacking the police, whereas it is clear that the police attacked the accused.

“How can the prosecution ask the court to send a message by denying bail, if bail is granted long before innocence or guilt is established?” he asked.

“The main reason to deny bail is the risk of contamination of evidence. I argue however, that the only risk of contamination of evidence in this case comes from the police themselves.

Abela said the accused was ready to face the consequences of his actions.

“The accused was in a relationship with a woman and had a child and this relationship recently ended. The accused has undoubtedly learned his lesson. Whatever the reason was to drink, probably to forget, he has learned that he cannot drive. Let us not add to the accused’s woes.”

Abela requested the court to decide on the merits of the evidence produced and not to be influenced by the media or feel undeserved pressure.

Referring to the speech made by the Chief Justice on the occasion of the opening of the Forensic Year, which mentioned the pressure exerted by the media on the judiciary, he warned the magistrate to expect criticism if she grants the accused bail, “but the right and correct decision is one based only on objective and legal grounds.”

The mother of the accused shed tears of joy as the court granted him bail against a personal guarantee of €10,000.