Bodycam unveils police perjury, contradicting courtroom testimony

A recent call for greater respect toward the police has sparked widespread discussion, but should this reverence to authority go unquestioned?

Lawyers Dr. Veronique Dalli and Dr. Dean Hili represented Mr. Lazar Mitic in a case where CCTV footage contradicted Police claims that Mitic had threatened, resisted arrest, and assaulted officers. Instead, the footage revealed that the officers had ignored his report of being threatened by a third party—choosing to lounge in a restaurant rather than investigate his claims.

The court condemned the officers’ “outright lies,” urged disciplinary action, and cleared the defendant of major charges.

In a recent judgment delivered by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) As a Court of Criminal Judicature, a Magistrate has urged the Police Commissioner to consider disciplinary action against two constables after CCTV footage contradicted their account in an assault case, revealing what the court unquestionably refers to as “outright lies.”

The case involved an incident outside a kebab shop in San Ġwann, where Mr Lazar Mitic, 27, reported to the Police what he perceived to be threatening behaiour by a knife wielding man, during an argument in which this aggressor alleged that the defendant had damaged his car while parking. Mitic approached nearby officers for help upon their arrival, but instead of investigating, they first perceived him as the aggressor and then continued with dining at the same restraurant.

CCTV footage showed Mitic approaching them, visibly distressed and pointing toward his alleged attacker.

The officers later claimed that Mitic became unruly and assaulted them, but footage revealed him simply pacing anxiously outside before they handcuffed him. He was charged with assault, resisting arrest, and other minor offenses, but pleaded not guilty.

In court, the officers described Mitic as challenging them to a fight and acting erratically, but bodycam and CCTV footage showed no such behavior. The Magistrate criticized the officers’ failure to investigate, noting that their inaction likely worsened the situation.

Mitic was found to be innocent of the major charges, and was only found guilty of minor offenses, resulting in a one-year conditional discharge.

Mitic was represented by Dr. Veronique Dalli and Dr. Dean Hili

Freedom of speech: Are we too ‘woke’?

The recent decision by the Court of Magistrates in the case of content creator raises important questions about digital expression in an era of evolving social norms.

The case centered around an Instagram story published by the content creator, in which she jokingly asked her dog whether they should “burn down the circus” after its operator had been fined €2,000 for animal cruelty during one of its shows. Though she explicitly framed her statement as a joke “for legal purposes,” the court found this constituted a criminal threat.

While the court’s commitment to public safety is commendable, its interpretation of Malta’s amended communications laws may warrant further examination. Legal amendments in 2023 were specifically designed to protect artistic and satirical expression that doesn’t constitute a “credible and realistic” threat. In applying these provisions, courts face the challenging task of distinguishing between genuine threats and protected speech.

Several contextual factors in this case might have warranted deeper consideration: the statement was addressed to a pet, explicitly labeled as humour, and came from an individual with no history of violence but a documented commitment to animal welfare. Importantly, no actual harm materialized, and no evidence suggested anyone interpreted it as a genuine threat.

The ruling raises important questions about freedom of expression in digital communication. Social media regularly employs hyperbole, satire, and pointed humour to comment on social issues. Finding the right balance between protecting public safety and preserving space for legitimate social commentary requires careful consideration.

The decision also invites reflection on how courts might interpret the recent legislative reforms designed to protect satirical speech. A key question emerges: how can we maintain public safety while ensuring legitimate social criticism through humor? This balance is particularly relevant in cases involving commentary on documented wrongdoing, as in this instance.

The implications extend beyond this particular case to broader questions about social advocacy. How might courts distinguish between passionate advocacy and genuine threats? What role should context play in evaluating social media speech? These questions deserve careful consideration as our legal system continues to adapt to digital communication norms.

Going forward, there may be value in developing more nuanced frameworks for evaluating digital communication. This could help courts navigate the complex landscape of online expression while maintaining necessary protections against genuine threats.

The challenge lies in protecting public safety while preserving the vital role of free speech in public discourse. Through thoughtful debate, we can work toward interpretations that serve both these important objectives.

Disclaimer: Dalli Advocates provided legal counsel in this case.