Christian Borg’s acquittal: The hallmarks of criminal intent

The acquittal of Christian Borg, owner of the No Deposit Cars dealership, over perjury charges this week is a serious case of gross negligence by the police.

The magistrate hearing the case could have never found against Borg because the single-most important piece of evidence – the verbatim transcript of Borg’s testimony that was under scrutiny – was not presented in court by the prosecuting police officer.

In the best scenario, this would be a case of gross incompetence that should lead to disciplinary action against the police inspector who prosecuted; in the worst scenario, it would be a case of corruption that requires an investigation of the police conduct.

Borg is no ordinary individual. Apart from having been involved in a dubious land transfer deal with Prime Minister Robert Abela and his wife Lydia Abela (at the time Abela was still a backbench MP), Borg is facing multiple criminal charges in court. The charges range from participation in a botched kidnapping in which he and his associates allegedly threatened to torture the victim and rape his sister; to separate charges of VAT fraud and money laundering.

It is pertinent to note a scathing judgment delivered by Mr Justice Toni Abela in October 2023 in a civil case instituted by Borg’s No Deposit Cars against a client over a hire purchase contract. The judge said the commercial agreement lacked good faith, adding the company adopted “misleading commercial practices because it was using deceptive methods to cheat ordinary consumers”. Mr Justice Abela went on to argue that in civil law, bad faith is the equivalent of fraud, throwing out the company’s request to force their client to pay up money owed.

We quote this civil judgment because it shows the type of shady person Christian Borg is.

The perjury case was ostensibly the one in which the police should have had the least problematic route to secure a conviction. Instead, they botched it in such a way that has all the hallmarks of criminal intent written all over it.

Within this context, we expect the police force to be forthcoming with an explanation as to why the crucial transcript was not produced as evidence. The transcript could have easily been obtained from the court registrar, requiring no extraordinary effort to source it. But alas, the prosecuting officer simply forgot to source it, or opted not to.

We also expect the Home Affairs Minister to show concern and demand accountability from the police force. Indeed, we expect an independent investigation into the police’s suspect behaviour in this case. But we will not hold our breath.

Indeed, if the government gets its way on the magisterial inquiry reform, any individual motivated to ask for a magisterial inquiry into how the police acted in the Borg perjury case would be forced to first file a police report. Any such enterprising individual would go to the police to ask them to investigate their own suspect behaviour. What a farce it would be.

Christian Borg’s acquittal because of a glaring omission by the police is one such example where the current magisterial inquiry framework could work effectively to establish whether the suspicions raised are founded or not.

Under the new regime being forced through by the government, requesting such an inquiry would be an obstacle race. Government is basically, shutting down one of the alternative investigative routes available to ordinary citizens.

Christian Borg’s acquittal is another slap in the face of justice and the rule of law. It is another confirmation of the rot this administration has dragged itself in. And now it even wants to deny ordinary citizens the right to directly petition the law courts for a magisterial inquiry to be held.