|
Reference is made to the story entitled “Police behind dramatic girl recovery from Syria faces dismissal”, by journalist Karl Schembri, which was published in the edition of the MaltaToday of the 28 May 2006.
The Police Department wishes to clarify the following:
The police officer in question was charged in Court for fraud and was subsequently interdicted from the exercise of the power and functions of her office since 17 May 2001, in terms of Regulations 12 (2) of the Public Service Commission (Disciplinary Procedure) Regulations, 1999. Court case is still sub judice.
Regulation 12 (10) of the Disciplinary Regulations stipulates that an “an officer who is under interdiction may not leave Malta without permission of the Head of Public Service and any such officer who leaves Malta without such permission shall be liable to dismissal”.
On the 9 December 2005, this police officer declared on a TV programme that she worked as a private investigator and that she travelled to Syria in connection with a private investigation she was conducting. She was subsequently interviewed by another TV station and by one of the local newspapers. Paragraph 7.3.2.1. of the Public Service Management Code clearly provides that ‘public officers are required to obtain permission from their respective Permanent Secretary before undertaking any private work outside their official duties. Permanent Secretaries are to take into account any particular condition that may be attached to the appointment held by the applicant’.
Since it resulted that this police officer had proceeded abroad, and furthermore, undertook private work outside her official duties, without obtaining the requisite permission from the Permanent Secretary, disciplinary action that could lead to dismissal, in terms of the Public Service Commission (Disciplinary Procedure) Regulations, 1999, was initiated on the 13 March 2006, which proceedings are still sub judice.
The above clearly illustrates that the possible dismissal of this police officer cannot be attributed to the fact that she helped a Maltese mother recover her daughter, but as a result of the alleged series of illegal acts committed by same, for which she is undergoing both criminal and disciplinary proceedings.
From the above, it is evident that journalist Karl Schembri was completely erroneous when he gave the impression that this officer, against whom proceedings were initiated for breaches of the law, had become a hero, whilst the Police Department that was only doing its legal duties in preserving the laws of Malta, was pictured as this officer’s aggressors.
WPC255 Roberta Fenech
f/Commissioner of Police
Editorial note: The Police Commissioner must have misread the story, given that at no point was the police officer in question referred to or depicted as being “a hero” under persecution for saving a daughter.. In fact, it was last January that she was depicted as a hero in other sections of the press. The story merely stated that: “Gatt was widely lauded in the press for the mission she had accomplished in stories and TV programmes that ran over a month, although all of the reports seemed oblivious of the fact that she was also a police constable.”
|
