Publisher's Pages

THE CURIOUS CASE OF AHMAD AZIZ WHO WRITES TO SAY…

Pleas in criminal case in the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech Magistrate Malta 

Plea of the Judection of court
Article 5 criminal code Malta will apply regarding Judection of court alleged offences are not the category of international crime,alleged offence were not committed in Malta,alleged offences were committed in Pakistan and accused is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court.Maltese court has no jurisdiction to trial alleged offences in Malta.According to the principle criminal jurisdiction of states people must be tried in the same state the crime is committed abroad.
Territoriality promoted the common law ideal of
confrontation in criminal cases by ensuring that suspects would face trial near the scene of the crime, where witnesses and evidence were more readily available. According to this ideal, a prosecution far from the scene of the crime not only inconvenienced witnesses but was also unfair to defendants.’ Moreover, it seemed unfair to require nationals to answer to two sovereigns while abroad.Common law ideals, since it ensured that Maltese nationals would be tried near the scene of the crime, with witnesses and evidence readily available.Such an exercise of self-restraint would honor the most fundamental principle of criminal jurisdiction.Government prosecuted the accused in Pakistan and accused was accquited.In cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), the common law position is that an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).What if the evidential footprint within this jurisdiction is slight; if there is some evidence which might on a narrow view satisfy the test in Smith or the statute but the bulk of the relevant activity took place abroad?  If defending, one could appeal to the concept of international comity, per Smith, although seeking to persuade a magistrate that the proceedings might offend the right of another state to enforce the criminal law in its own territory might be judged a somewhat academic approach.A more fruitful idea in the appropriate case might be to rely on the fact that little of the alleged offending took place within this country as support for any wider submissions that the proceedings are in reality driven by improper motive and that consequently the summons should not be issued or should be set aside / stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.As accused is prosecuted for the same offence in more than one country Pakistan and Malta, any injustice could be obviated by the pleas of autrefois acquit. One is to assume that jurisdiction lies in the country where the act is planned or initiated. 
That the Maltese Courts did not have jurisdiction on the facts as According to section 5 of the Maltese Criminal Code (hereinafter “CC”) and article 741 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta,to trial alleged offences against Ahmad Aziz in Malta.
Accused is not facing criminal together with civil action in any special laws of Malta.Under article 5 criminal code Malta and under article 741 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta alleged civil and criminal action may not be trialled in Malta.

Plea of double jeopardy 
According to the article 527 criminal code Malta and article 39(9) constitution of Malta matter is double jeopardy.Accused is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations.In Pakistan accused was acquitted in the charges under Article 419 PPC PAKISTAN. Punishment for cheating by personation : Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.Cheating by personation: A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation: The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. Illustrations (a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name, A cheats by Personation. (b) A cheats by pretending to be , a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.
Point is  discussed in the judgment ‘The Police versus Gregory Paul Brincat’ of the 20th September 2012 and, to avoid unnecessary repetition, the Court is referring to the relevant paragraphs about the matter in that judgment. ‘ (When a fact violates more than one provision of the lawProfessor Mamo in his Notes on Criminal Law wrote as follows; ‘ In any such case if the agent is tried for any one of the several violations of the law arising out of that fact, be it even the least serious, and a judgement is given, it shall not be lawful to subject the agent to another trial for the more serious violations. This principle, first expressly affirmed in ‘Rex versus Rosaria Portelli’ has now become settled law.’.. Fil-fatt fit-2 ta’ Diċembru, 1939, l-Imħallef Harding fil-każ ‘Camilleri versus Cilia’ kien qal li huwa prinċipju stabbilit fil-urisprudenza tagħna li meta mill-istess fatt, mibni fuq l-istess intenzjoni, jinkisru żewġ drittijiet jew aktar, m’hemmx pluralita’ ta’ offiżi iżda offiża waħda bil-vjolazzjoni li jkunu iżghar jkunu assorbiti fil-vjolazzjoni l-aktar serja. U jekk persuna tkun iġġudikata ghal wahda mill-vjolazzjonijiet u jkun meħlus jew jinsab ħati, is-sentenza iżżomm kull prosekuzzjoni ġdida li tista’ ssir għal kull vjolazzjoni oħra, ukoll jekk il-vjolazzjoni li jkun tressaq fuqha l-ewwel darba tkun l-anqas waħda serja.’ The part in Maltese freely translated reads as follows ‘On the 2nd December 1939, Mr Justice Harding in the case ‘Camilleri versus Cilia’ held that it is a principle of Maltese jurisprudence that when through the same fact, having the same intention, there are two or more violations of the law , there is no plurality of offences but one offence only with the minor offence being absorbed in the more serious one. And if a person is judged on one violation and is found guilty or is acquitted, the judgement will preclude the Prosecution from pressing charges on the other violation even if the first charge happened to carry a lower penalty than the second one. Once again the Court refers to the words ‘is judged’ appearing in bold in the English version.plea of autrefois acquit is based on the principle of justice and fairness.The common law authorities have accepted the proposition that the concept of double jeopardy may apply between two nations:  Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed. 1976), vol. 2, para. 88; R. v. Thomas, [1985] Q.B. 604 (C.A.). In this regard, Martin J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in R. v. Stratton (1978), 3 C.R. (3d) 289, at p. 298 (obiter), that the plea of autrefois acquit applies to foreign convictions. Maltese and Pakistani alleged offences belongs to same event and same fact.The Maltese charges are limited to events which occurred in Pakistan.Case was essentially that the facts had already been adjudicated upon in Pakistan. Therefore, by reason of the res rudicata principle, those facts could not be adjudicated upon a second time in Malta.In Malta accused is charged with criminal offence arising from a single set of facts which accused is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court.
JUDGMENT R (on the application of Hysaj and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Bakijasi (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)before the supreme court of the United kingdom Lady Hale, President,Lord Kerr,Lord Wilson,Lord Hughes,Lord Hodge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 21 December 2017.The issue was whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under Law.X uses a false identity created by him (or someone on his behalf) and in that identity he acquires the characteristics needed to obtain citizenship. X applies for citizenship using the false identity Y. But X meets the requirements for citizenship albeit having acquired them by using the false identity Y. X is considered for citizenship by the Secretary of State in identity Y and is granted citizenship in that identity. In such a case, in the Secretary of State’s view, the grant of citizenship is valid, albeit that the person may later be deprived if their is any law to deprived such citizenship.UPON the Respondent accepting that the Appellants are British citizens by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”), and that that citizenship remains valid unless and until a formal deprivation order is made pursuant to section 40(3) of the 1981 Act AND UPON the Respondent accepting that her decisions, dated 13 February 2013 and 27 June 2013, that the Appellants’ British citizenships were ‘nullities’ (i.e. that the Appellants were not, and had never been, British citizens) were wrong in law.Defendant is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations defendant is facing a criminal  case in Malta.
That without prejudice to the foregoing, plaintiff’s claims are unfounded in fact and at law and should be denied. 
According to the article  5(l) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta defendant is Maltese national by birth.Article 5(1) Every person born in Malta on or after the appointed day shall be deemed to have become or shall become, a citizen of Malta at the date of his birth.
That defendant is Maltese citizen by Birth under article 5(1) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta and that that citizenship remains valid permanently because There is no law which can allow to deprive a person of his Maltese citizenship by birth.In the case of defendant,defendant is having a valid Maltese citizenship by birth and defendant has single citizenship Maltese.Their is no law which can deprive the Maltese citizenship of Maltese national by birth.In the light of the judgement of supreme court of the United kingdom action of the police should be dismissed.
Police Act, Chapter 164 of the Laws of Malta article 92 The Police may, directly or through regional or international police organisations, co-operate with any state agency having similar
 powers and duties in any other country.
Plea of prescription
According to the article 688a,b,c,d,E and f alleged offences are time barred because alleged offences were committed in 2007.In most continental legal systems theState’s right to initiate criminal proceedingsis subject to time-limits. Once those timelimits have elapsed, the right to prosecute istime-barred by application of the relevantlegislation. Several reasons are adduced to justify
placing a time-bar on the State’s right toprosecute. For example, it is argued that aftera certain number of years have passed, it isbetter for the sake of social peace to let thepast rest rather than to revive the socialunrest caused by the alleged offence. If theState acts negligently in failing to bring thedefendant to trial within the establishedtime-limits, that may justify society losingits right to punish the individuals concerned.Finally, on a more practical level, the moretime that has elapsed since the allegedoffence, the more difficult it is likely to beto obtain reliable evidence and to hold a fairtrial.In relation to criminal matters, Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 uk states that normally a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.Article 127 (1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.There is violation of article 7 of ECHR to start criminal proceedings together with civil proceedings when alleged offences are time barred.

45-year-old Amad Aluwyad Nabil Mahmoud from Lebanon had been accused of misappropriation after failing to carry out works which he had been contracted to do in a Sliema residence. The amount agreed for the works was to be €30,000.Some time later, the man had simply vanished into thin air, with the woman turning towards his lawyer and alleging that he was aware of the fraud committed by his client.A police report was filed.The court of magistrates had ruled against Mahmoud in 2016 and he had appealed. The court of appeal had declared the case null and ordered that it be reheard.It was eventually assigned to magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo in 2017. Magistrate Farrugia Frendo,the court noted that the incident allegedly occurred in 2009 and that there was no record of when the accused was notified, only that he had first appeared to answer the charges in October 2015. This, said the court, meant that the charges as presented against the accused were time-barred by the lapse of five years from the alleged crime.

Plea of violation of right of fair hearing in reasonable time 
Police started investigation against accused in July 2015.According to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE  In its case law, the Court has defined methods to calculate length of proceedings. The starting point of the calculation is different in civil, criminal and administrative cases. In civil cases it is normally the date on which the case was referred to the court. In criminal cases, the starting point taken into account is when accusations, as understood by the Convention, are first made against the applicant, which can be the date on which the suspect was arrested, charged or even the date on which a police investigation began. In administrative cases, it is the date on which the applicant first refers the matter to the administrative authorities (even in the case of a preliminary administrative appeal or an internal appeal for review).There is violation of article 39 constitution of Malta and article 6 of ECHR right of fair hearing in reasonable time. The Police -v- Anthony Azzopardi decided on 4 February, 2010. In that judgement the court had held that criminal cases are to be finalised as quickly as possible and this in the interest not only of the accused but also in the interest of society.

EChr Bessenyei v. Hungary (application no. 37509/06) The applicant, Károly Bessenyei, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Kál (Hungary).Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)Violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4

 In June 2001 Mr Bessenyei was charged with forgery. He was ultimately acquitted in September 2005. Between June 2001 and July 2003 pending his trial he was prevented from travelling abroad on account of the serious nature of the charges against him. The case concerned his complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the ban on his travelling abroad. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the proceedings against the applicant having lasted five years. The Court also noted that the ban on the applicant travelling had lasted more than two years and had not been periodically reassessed: it had been an automatic, blanket measure of indefinite duration. The ban had not therefore been justified or proportionate in the individual circumstances of the applicant’s case and the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4.

Accused Ahmad Aziz is not allowed to travel.

According to regulation 19(8)4 of Subsidiary Legislation 12.09 (Court Practice and Procedure and Good Order Rules) Once a case has been set down for hearing, the court seized of the matter shall ensure that the hearing of the case shall be expeditious, and the hearing of the case shall continue to be heard on consecutive days, and where this is not possible on dates close to one another. The court shall subsequently give its decision without any delay.

Plea of violation of right of silence 
Violation of right of silence to file civil action when criminal proceedings are going on with same facts is breach of article 6 ECHR and breach of article 39 constitution of Malta 
The right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself under Article 6(1)prevents the prosecution from obtaining evidenceby defying the will of the accused not to testify against himself.Accused was interrogated with out the presence of the advocate,when police informed the accused that accused is arrested in the allegations of abusing of authority and breach of duties that as Permanent public officer accused is suspended but continue his employment,police started questioning without the presence of lawyer in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz.

ECHR Brusco v. France 14 October 2010 The applicant, who was suspected of having masterminded an aggression, was taken into police custody and questioned as a witness, after being made to swear to tell the truth.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself) of the Convention. According to the Court,the applicant was not a mere witness but a person “charged with a criminal offence”, and as such should have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer until his 20th hour in police custody. Had a lawyer been present, he would have been able to inform the applicant of his right to remain silent.

ECHR judgment in the case Brusco v. France (application no. 1466/07), in which the Court found that the situation when a person who was questioned as a witness but was in fact a suspect and confessed to a crime without the presence of a lawyer, violated the fair trial standards

Right to a lawyer before police interrogation – as first established in the 2009 ECHR case of Salduz vs Turkey in 2009. 

Since the Salduz case, there have been 10 similar ECHR rulings establishing the same point, including Bos vs Turkey, Plonka vs Poland, Panovits vs Cyprus, Bruscoe vs France, Demirkaya vs Turkey, Dayanan vs Turkey and Pishkalnikov vs Russia among others.

During interrogation police harrased and pressurised the accused to accept allegations against him other wise accused may face 9 years imprisonment. This kind of Police behaviour during interrogation is clear proof of the violation of ECHR convention.ECHR Mader v. Croatia 21 June 2011The applicant complained in particular of having been beaten by the police during his questioning at the Zagreb Police Department, of having been forced to sit on a chair and having been deprived of sleep and food during the three days that he was questioned. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention both in respect of the applicant’s treatment at police station.
Accused had filled complaint before the 

Internal Audit & Investigations Department office of the Prime minister Malta against Ministry of foreign affairs Malta for the non provision of accused salaries,police produced testimony of officer from Internal Audit & Investigations Department against accused in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz in the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech pointing out that such a recorded testimony impinged upon accused right to silence. 

To start criminal proceedings against accused on the emails submitted by the accused himself and to use these emails in criminal proceedings against accused is a breach of Right of silence of accused.
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there had been a violation of Mario Borg’s human rights when he was denied legal assistance and the right to a fair trial after his arrest in 2003 A decision handed down  by the European Court of Fundamental Human Rights is causing a stir amongst the local legal community, after essentially declaring that the Maltese Constitutional Court had repeatedly breached the right to a fair hearing in cases where police had interrogated suspects without a lawyer being present.In its decision, the European Court of Human Rights held: unanimously, that there had been “a violation of Article 6 § 3 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, when the accused, Mario Borg, had not been assisted by a lawyer during his questioning, in the absence of any provisions of Maltese law allowing such assistance at the time.In his consenting opinion, European Court judge Pinto De Albuquerque did not pull his punches, accusing the Maltese Constitutional Court of breaching a constitutional instrument of European public order. It also undermined a principle established in landmark judgment Salduz v Turkey in which the ECHR had held that the applicant’s fair trial rights were prejudiced by restrictions on his access to a lawyer during police custody.The ECHR held that Borg had been denied the right to legal assistance at the pre-trial stage as a result of “a systemic restriction applicable to all accused persons.” This did not satisfy the requirement under the European Convention, that there be “compelling reasons” to restrict the right to assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation.

Violation of article 360(2) criminal code Malta
 (2) The summons shall contain a clear designation of the person summoned and a brief statement of the facts of the charge together with such particulars as to time and place as it may be necessary or practicable to give. It shall also contain an intimation that, in default of appearance, the person summoned shall be arrested by warrant of the court and arraigned on such day as may be stated in the warrant.
39 (6)(a) constitution of Malta shall be informed in writing, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature of the offence charged.Accused was informed by the police during investigation that accused is arrested in the allegations of abusing of authority and breach of duties that as Permanent public officer accused is suspended and accused continued his full time employment.Police may not investigate any other allegations which were not informed by the police.THE CHARGE SHEET PRESENTED BY THE POLICE IN CRIMINAL CHARGES, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 360(2) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, SHOULD CONTAIN A CLEAR AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CHARGE “TOGETHER WITH SUCH PARTICULARS AS TO TIME AND PLACE AS IT MAY BE NECESSARY OR PRACTICABLE TO GIVE”. UNLESS THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED, AND THE CHARGES BROUGHT CORRESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THE CHARGE SHEET, THEN THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO DISMISS THE CLAIM. THIS WAS HELD BY MAGISTRATE NATASHA GALEA SCIBERRAS IN THE CASE THE POLICE VS MOHAMMAD AWAL, WHICH WAS HELD ON THE 16TH OF MAY 2018.The Court heard how in a sitting held a few days earlier, where the accused was arraigned before the Court under arrest, the defendant requested that the trial be held in English and consequently the charges were read out and confirmed by the Prosecuting Officer in the English language. The Court commented on how the charges which were written on the charge sheet in Maltese were not identical to the charges on the English version of the charge sheet, with the defendant’s crime and the evidence brought not corresponding to the latter charge sheet.The defendant was originally charged with possession of cannabis resin with the intent to distribute according to the charge sheet in Maltese, while the charge sheet in English described the charge as possession of cannabis plant with intention to distribute the same. Although the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime, the Court stated that the accused was being charged with an offence which finds no basis in the alleged facts leading to his arrest, and a clear mismatch also was present with regard to the evidence produced. The Court rested on the testimony by expert Godwin Sammut who confirmed that the substance retrieved from the defendant was cannabis resin and not the plant. The law indeed distinguishes between the two, possession of which are two separate offences, and therefore, the defendant was charged with the wrong offence according to the latest translated charge sheet. The Court proceeded to liken this case to a number of others, wherein the inaccuracy of the charges as described on the charge sheet warranted a dismissal of the case.Hon. Judge William Harding, in the case of Pulizija vs Martin Camilleri, on the probatory value of a guilty plea. It was explained that in this case the Court, in consideration of both English and local law, had held that a Court cannot find a defendant guilty, even if they themselves admit guilt, unless they are guilty of the crime they are charged with. They cannot just be found guilty of committing a crime, but rather must be guilty of the crime described by the plaintiff. The Court therefore found the defendant not guilty as it held that it could not be assumed that the defendant was still guilty of cannabis possession if the law distinguished between offences in this regard.

The Court described the facts of the case in Pulizija vs John Mary Briffa, where in 2005 the appellant had been charged with a crime that according to the charge sheet occurred at 7.30pm. Despite this, the evidence brought pointed to an event that actually occurred at 7.30am. The Court had held that where the charge sheet declares that a crime occurred “ghall-habta ta” (around), referring to a crime that happened around the time indicated on the sheet, it must refer to a time very close to the one indicated, and not 12 hours earlier. The Court explained that in such situations where there is clearly a mistake, it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to request an immediate correction. 

On the other hand,report of police is not identifying in detail the nature and cause of the accusation.It is not sufficiently listed the offences of which he was accused,did not stated the place and the date,did not referred to the relevant articles of the Criminal Code and did not mentioned the name of the victim,their is violation of article 6 of ECHR.

Accused is not involved in any Victimless Crime,Victimless crimes are offenses against morality.Crimes like selling illegal weapons, selling drugs or the use of drugs are all examples of victimless crimes.In the case police vs Aziz Ahmad police is bound by law to mention the name of victim.
ECHR CASE OF BLOCK v. HUNGARY (Application no. 56282/09)in sum, the Court concludes that the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence were infringed. It follows that there has been a violation of paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of Article 6 of the Convention, taken together with paragraph 1 of that article, which provides for a fair trial.
The police vs Aziz Ahmad The possibility of re-chargerization his offence as allegations of abusing of authority and breach of duties that as Permanent public officer accused is suspended but continue his employment with Ministry of foreign affairs Malta as envoy but convicted him of fraud Forgery of public documents. This double re-chargerization had prejudiced his defence rights.Police had informed the accused of that accused is arrested in the allegations of abusing of authority and breach of duties that as Permanent public officer accused is suspended but continue his employment with Ministry of foreign affairs Malta as envoy.
Police may not investigate any other allegations which were not informed by the police.
Violation of article 390 criminal code Malta 
390. (l) The court shall hear the report of the Police officer on oath, shall examine, without oath, the party accused, and shall hear the evidence in support of the report. Everything shall be reduced to writing. (2) The court shall examine and reduce to writing the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.
ECHR CASE OF AQUILINA v. MALTA(Application no. 25642/94) The procedure which should be followed by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Inquiry is set out in Articles 389 to 409 of the Criminal Code. Sub-article (1) of Article 390 provides how proceedings should start before this Court: it ‘shall hear the report of the police officer on oath, shall examine, without oath, the party accused, and shall hear the evidence in support of the report’. The time-limit for the conclusion of this inquiry is one month as indicated in Article 401. In no way is the Court bound to hear any evidence in support of the report. Moreover, the fact that the prosecuting officers confirm the report on oath is meant to satisfy the Court that there is a reasonable suspicion for the person charged to be presented under arrest in view of the charges brought against him.This Court does not find anything to censure in the fact that the report confirmed on oath consists of a confirmation on oath of the charges; after all, in this context, the word ‘report’ means ‘charge’. Before issuing charge sheet police is bound by law article 536,537,538,539 and 540 criminal code Malta to receive information,complaint or report after that start investigation if found sufficient information to issue charge sheet.According to article 390 criminal code Malta The court shall hear the report of the Police officer on oath, shall examine, without oath, the party accused, and shall hear the evidence in support of the report. Everything shall be reduced to writing.In article 390 criminal code Malta report of police mean charge sheet not the report of informed or complainant before issuing charge sheet police has to recive complaint or report or information and after that police may start investigation and 3rd phase is to issue charge sheet.
Lüdi v. Switzerland, 12433/86, 15 June 1992 of ECHR The applicant maintained that his conviction had been based above all upon the undercover agent’s report and the tran-scripts of his telephone conversations with the agent, although he had not at any stage of the proceedings had an opportunity to question him or to have him questioned.neither the investigating judge nor the trial courts wereable or willing to hear Toni [the undercover agent] as a witness and carry out a confrontation which would enable Toni’s state-ments to be contrasted with Mr Lüdi’s allegations; moreover,neither Mr Lüdi nor his counsel had at any time during the pro-ceedings an opportunity to question him and cast doubt on his credibility. Yet it would have been possible to do this in a way which took into account the legitimate interest of the police au-thorities in a drug trafficking case in preserving the anonymity of their agent, so that they could protect him and also make use of him again in the future. In short, the rights of the defence were restricted to such an extent that the applicant did not have a fair trial. There was there-fore a violation of paragraph 3 (d) in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 6.
In the case of accused, police started investigation on the emails of accused Ahmad Aziz in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz, their is no report or complaint against accused.If honourable court carry out a confrontation which would enable accused emails to be contrasted with police allegations.

For example as INQUIRIES RELATING TO THE “IN GENERE”,INQUESTS AND “REPERTI”according to the article 546(1)criminal code Malta ,Saving the provisions of the next following articles, upon the receipt of any report, information or complaint regard to any offence liable to the punishment of exceeding three years, and if the subject-matter of the offence exists, the state thereof, with each and every particular, shall described, and the instrument, as well as the manner in which instrument may have produced the effect, shall be indicated. According to the The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control affiliated with the United Nations and according to the Article 546(1) criminal code Malta, court of Magistrate of criminal inquiry has no powers to start investigation on its own initiative on INQUIRIES RELATING TO THE “IN GENERE”,INQUESTS AND “REPERTI” same principle applies to the police,police may not start any investigation or criminal proceedings with out report,information or complaint according to Criminal code article 535,536,537,538,539 and 540,police may not start any investigation on its own initiative with out the report, information or complaint according to the Criminal code article 535,536,537,538,539 and 540.

Violation of article 536,537 till 540   

The ‘notitiae criminis’ is what sets criminal prosecution in motion. The term may in fact be loosely defined as a notice, communicated to the competent authorities, that a criminal offence is alleged to have been committed. Maltese law provides for three different methods as to how notice of an offence may be lodged, namely; through a Report, an Information or a Complaint.

On the other hand, an ‘information’ (referred to in Maltese as denunzja) may be communicated to the police by any ordinary citizen – however without any legal duty or obligation to actually do so. In Malta, when an individual supplies information of an offence to the police, the term used by many is ‘report’ (i.e. ‘rapport lill-pulizija’), however, technically and legally speaking, ‘report’ is not the correct legal word to use in such a context, since what one would really and truly be doing in these scenarios is providing the police with aiding information, i.e. a ‘denunzja’ and not a ‘rapport’. Article 536 outlines the content of an ‘information’ as follows:

The informer shall clearly state the fact with all its circumstances and shall, as far as possible, furnish all such particulars as may be requisite to ascertain the offence, to establish the nature thereof as well as to make known the principals and the accomplices.”Lastly, the ‘complaint’ (referred to in Maltese as kwerela) differs from an ‘information’ or a ‘report’ insofar as it must necessarily be lodged by the party aggrieved or by someone on his/her behalf. Criminal code Malta article 4(2) A criminal action is prosecuted ex Officio in all cases where the complaint of the private party is not requisite to set the action in motion or where the law does not expressly leave the prosecution of the action to a private party.
 Article 535. (l) Any person may give information to any officer of the Executive Police of any offence liable to prosecution by the Police ex Officio, of which such person may have in any manner become aware. (2) Nevertheless, no action shall be taken by the Police upon any anonymous report or information, except in the case of a flagrant offence or where the report or information refers to some fact of a permanent nature. In any such case, it shall be lawful for the Police to proceed on such report or information, after ascertaining the flagrancy of the offence or the permanent fact. 536. The informer shall clearly state the fact with all its circumstances and shall, as far as possible, furnish all such particulars as may be requisite to ascertain the offence, to establish the nature thereof as well as to make known the principals and the accomplices. 537. An information may be laid either verbally or in writing: Provided that where an information is laid verbally, it shall,except in cases which admit of no delay, be reduced to writing forthwith and shall be signed by the informer, or, if he is unable to write, by the Police officer by whom it is reduced to writing. 538. Every person who feels himself aggrieved by any offence and desires to lodge a complaint for the punishment of the offender, if known, or, if not known, in case he should be discovered, may make such complaint to any Police officer, even by letter. 539. Articles 536 and 537 shall apply also to complaints.
540. Upon the receipt of any report, information or complaint requiring proceedings to be taken, the Executive Police shall as soon as possible inform the Court of Magistrates (Malta), or the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), or a magistrate, as the case may be, in order to receive the necessary directions for such proceedings: Provided that if upon the report, information or complaint the party concerned has been summoned or, in any case where the Executive Police is authorized to proceed forthwith to the arrest of the party concerned, such party has been actually arrested, it shall be lawful for the Police to inform the court of such report,information or complaint at the moment that the party summoned or arrested is brought before it.
The authority or party who would have the right to initiate criminal proceedings must know that an offence has been committed.Our law envisages three methods whereby notice of the offence can be given: (a) report; (b) information; and (c) complaint.A report is an information given to the appropriate authorities by who-ever has a legal duty to give that information.The information is the act whereby an individual spontaneously gives notice to the Executive Police of an offence, being one which can be prosecuted ex officio, howsoever the person may have become aware ofit. As a general rule there is no duty imposed on private individuals to give information of offences committed. The law generally leaves it in their discretion to give or to forbear from giving such information. How-ever, there are instances where failure to give such information may amount to an offence. A case in point would be the failure to inform thecompetent authorities of any crime against the safety of Government about to be committed or of offences against the person or property.There are other special laws which impose a duty upon a particular class of persons to forward information of an offence or suspicion of an offence coming to their knowledge.The complaint is the representation to the police of a personal damage or injury suffered as a result of an offence, moved by the desire of obtaining satisfaction through the instrumentality of the Courts of Criminal Justice. The complainant, therefore unlike the informer, would have a personal interest, in filing the complaint.June 2006/07 the Director of Health, Ray Cachia, had filed a police report as he was concerned about the manner in which a baby’s birth had been registered.Dr Cachia told the police that the Public Registry had pointed out a discrepancy in the note of birth of the baby with regard to the mother’s particulars and that the midwife’s signature had been falsified.The baby boy was born last May and, later that month, a couple had registered the birth, with the woman declaring she was the child’s natural mother.Both individuals admitted to the police they had falsified the hospital documentation about the birth of the baby but had done so to protect the child’s natural mother, who was 17 years old when she had the baby.the court held the evidence of the midwife who had delivered the baby. She said she had delivered the baby boy and had registered this in the hospital’s books. However, the birth certificate indicated a different woman as being the baby’s mother.
In this case accused is never involved in any alleged forgery and criminal proceedings are still going on and their is no report of Director public registry or director health department against accused and neither any one filed report against accused in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz.

Non Admissibility of the evidence of the police
That according to the Belgium court would not have to give judgments actions based on evidence that had become uncertain with the passing of time.Evidence is not admissible of police best evidence rule etc article 559 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta. In all cases the court shall require the best evidence the party may be able to produce.According to best evidence rules article 559 alleged forged documents are not original these are only photocopies which does not exist, in the case of forgery only original forged documents are admissible.I can strongly confirm that I was never in possession of any forged documents and I have nothing to do with any forgery and I only have single citizenship Maltese,their are no original forged documents available and their is no forgery because I am never a usa citizen and my parents were married in Pakistan as proof attached marriage and death certificates of my parents,I can strongly confirm that I never submitted or I was never in possession of alleged photocopies mentioned by director public registry Malta together with Maltese police.I can strongly confirm that i am born in Sliema Malta dated 1 November 1983.As alleged offences are of 2007 according to Criminal code article 688a,b,c,d, and f matter is time barred and double jeopardy as I am already acquitted by the honourable court with same allegations I am facing a criminal case together with civil proceedings against me in Malta.It is also important to note that I was not resident in Malta before 2010.
Handwriting expert report is not admissible.As my handwriting was examined by the expert It is important to note that expert is not in possession of any signatures and handwriting of person’s he was required to examine,Expert examined handwriting through photocopies, Would a document examiner worth his or her salt settle for the examination of photocopies?  I would say not.  An analogy I frequently use is the difference between a dried leaf and a living leaf.  Much of what can be found in a living leaf, has long disappeared in a dead leaf.So much of the story of the writing is lost in a photocopy and the further along the generation of copy, the more is lost.  So often I am asked to examine documents which are  photocopies with such poor writing specimens, that it is not viable to examine the writing.   I generally insist on examining original documents with original writing on it as one of the main features of the writing which needs to be examined closely is the line quality which provides a great deal of information.  Such information includes, the pen pressure, how the pen moved along the paper, possible physical, mental and age related features, pen pressure on the paper and the ink quality.  All those features are lost in photocopies.In a photocopy, any tell tale marks of tracing, erasure, indentations and other methods or signs of forgery, are lost.  Where there are breaks in a line of writing, in a photocopy, was it as a result of the printing process?  Or forgery? Or physical, mental or age related conditions?photocopies tend to shrink the size of the original writing and printing and measurements of letters can therefore not reveal potential similarities and or differences.To examine Ahmad Aziz handwriting with Louise McDonald Midwife expert must have original handwriting of Louise McDonald Midwif.According to law evidence submitted by police and AG is tottaly inadmissible and time barred.Handwriting expert opinion may not take place of evidence because in the case of forgery only direct evidence is acceptable.
According to European Network of Forensic Science Institutes Best Practice Manual for the Forensic Examination of Handwriting Whether the handwriting is original or in the form of a copy document. If possible and practicable examine the original documents. [ 9.7 of this procedure before continuing].Examination of copy documents9.7.1 Copy documents (such as photocopies, faxes, microfiche copies) do not contain all of the detail present in the original documents, and the quality of copy documents varies from item to item. If an examination and comparison is to be made using copy documents, the following observations must be made:1.Determine the clarity of the copy document. Is the handwriting sufficiently detailed for comparison purposes?2.Comment in the notes on the fact that copy documents have been examined3.There must be a disclaimer that the examination is commenting only on the handwriting and is not commenting on the authenticity of the document.4.There must be comment within the notes that the results of any examination may be limited due to the fact that copy documents have been examined.If the clarity of the copy document is poor, then comment should be made to this effect, and no significance should be attributed to any comparison made.
Only direct evidence is admissible in the case of forgery.
Accused is never in possession of any alleged forged documents and during investigation accused confirmed that accused was never in possession of any alleged forged documents and accused never submitted any alleged forged documents to public registry Malta .Witnesses of plaintiff also testified that accused Ahmad Aziz did not submitted any alleged forged documents to the public registry.
The Police -v- Akram Amar Swayah of 8 May, 2006, where the court held that Article 656 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the Court is not bound to the opinion of the court expert. This was the position of the Constitutional Court in The Police v George Xuereb decided on 25 February, 2011.

The staleness of offence doctrine aims at preventing the conducting of a trial based on ‘stale’ evidence. In the United Kingdom, the Crown Prosecution Service may decide not to prosecute a crime if too much time has passed since the actual commission of the crime, and accordingly, evidence has become unreliable, insufficient or disappeared, or has not even been found. The staleness of evidence doctrine serves one of the same functions as a statute of limitation, namely, preventing trials based upon unreliable evidence.Nolle prosequi Whenever the period between the actual commission of the crime and the prosecutorial stage allegedly is too long, prosecutorial authorities may refrain from prosecution on the grounds of nolle prosequi. In common law, the public prosecutor has the discretionary powers to enter a nolle prosequi in his discretion,which is opposed to the discretionary powers based upon the principle of legality (la légalité des poursuites). These discretionary powers provide the prosecutorial authorities with yet another technique to refrain from prosecution, because of unreliable or insufficient evidence, or the complete absence of evidence. Even though the principle of nolle prosequi functions among others for guaranteeing fair trials, it also may be coloured by political expediency, or used to obtain or rather avoid prosecutions.

Testimony of witnesses and evidence produced  by plaintiff is violation of defendant’s constitutional,fundamental and human rights. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. when an illegal action is used by prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action this evidence is known as “fruit of the poisonous tree can be thrown out.when matter is time barred,double jeopardy and their is violation of right of silence Testimony of witnesses and evidence produced  by plaintiff is not admissible.

During police questioning accused was also questioned through video recording, all answers given thereto and all the proceedings related to the questioning of the suspect or accused person, shall where possible in the opinion of the interviewer be recorded by audio-visual means and in such case a copy of the recording shall be handed over to the suspect or the accused person following the

Pleas in law in the case director public registry Malta vs Aziz Ahmad in the court of Dr Tony Abela case number 421/18


plea of the jurisdiction of court
Article 741 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta it shall be lawful to plead to the jurisdiction of the court -(a) when the action is not one within the jurisdiction of the courts of Malta; any alleged offences under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta Committee abroad may not be trialled in Malta.According to the principle criminal jurisdiction of states people must be tried in the same state the crime is committed abroad.Territoriality promoted the common law ideal of confrontation in criminal cases by ensuring that suspects would face trial near the scene of the crime, where witnesses and evidence were more readily available. According to this ideal, a prosecution far from the scene of the crime not only inconvenienced witnesses but was also unfair to defendants.’ Moreover, it seemed unfair to require nationals to answer to two sovereigns while abroad.Common law ideals, since it ensured that Maltese nationals would be tried near the scene of the crime, with witnesses and evidence readily available. Such an exercise of self-restraint would honor the most fundamental principle of criminal jurisdiction,Government prosecuted the accused in Pakistan and accused was accquited.Alleged offences under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta were not committed in Malta,alleged offences are not of the category of international crimes,alleged offences were committed in Pakistan and Maltese courts has no judection to trial these allegations against defendant in Malta, defendant was accquited by the honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations as proof attached acquittal judgment.According to article 270(6) CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta Any person who before a diplomatic or consular representative commits the offence referred to in article 263 may be prosecuted, tried and punished for such offence in the manner and to the same extent as if the offence had been committed in Malta .Its mean any alleged offence under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta committed out of Malta or out of its diplomatic or consular mission may not be trialled in Malta because this offence is not of the category of international crime,alleged offence was committed in Pakistan and I was acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations I am facing a criminal case together with civil proceedings against me in Malta as proof attached acquittal judgment.
In cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), the common law position is that an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).
What if the evidential footprint within this jurisdiction is slight; if there is some evidence which might on a narrow view satisfy the test in Smith or the statute but the bulk of the relevant activity took place abroad?  If defending, one could appeal to the concept of international comity, per Smith, although seeking to persuade a magistrate that the proceedings might offend the right of another state to enforce the criminal law in its own territory might be judged a somewhat academic approach.A more fruitful idea in the appropriate case might be to rely on the fact that little of the alleged offending took place within this country as support for any wider submissions that the proceedings are in reality driven by improper motive and that consequently the summons should not be issued or should be set aside / stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.As accused is prosecuted for the same offence in more than one country Pakistan and Malta, any injustice could be obviated by the pleas of autrefois acquit. One is to assume that jurisdiction lies in the country where the act is planned or initiated.  That the Maltese Courts did not have jurisdiction on the facts as According to section 5 of the Maltese Criminal Code (hereinafter “CC”) and article 741 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta,to trial alleged offences against Ahmad Aziz in Malta.Accused is not facing criminal together with civil action in any special laws of Malta.Under article 5 criminal code Malta and under article  741 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta alleged civil and criminal action may not be trialled in Malta.
Violation of article 253,254 chapter 16 laws of Malta  According to Article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta. (l) It shall be lawful for any person to bring an action for the correction or cancellation of any registration, or for registration of any act which the Director, with the approval of retired Judge or retired Magistrate or retired advocate of the Revision of Notarial Acts, shall have refused to receive.Article 253(4) CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta any action shall be brought by way of sworn application before the competent court against the Director.
Article 254. (l) Fifteen days at least before the hearing of the action referred to in the last preceding article, a notice as in Form B in Part Il of the First Schedule to this Code shall, by order of the court, be published in the Government Gazette, calling upon any party interested to declare, within fifteen days from the publication
 of such notice, by means of a note, whether he desires to contest the action.(2) Notice of the day appointed for the trial of the action shall be given to any person who shall have filed such note within the said time.According to article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta Director public registry has no authority/capacity to file any action for cancellation of any registration.According to Article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta. (l) It shall be lawful for any person to bring an action for the correction or cancellation of any registration,any person mean interested party,parents  or adult himself or herself may file action under article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta against Director public registry.
To file action under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta by plaintiff director public registry in case number 421/2018 after more than 10 years has gone past is lack of credibility.Alleged offences were committed in Pakistan and defendant is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court.
Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta is violation of article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta.plaintiff failed to follow procedure according to article 253,254 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta.
Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta is violation of article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta because Plaintiff failed to follow procedure according to article 253 CHAPTER 16 law of Malta.Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta before the honourable court which has appellate jurisdiction against the decision of Court of Revision of Notarial Acts,plaintiff failed to filed action before the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts before filing action before the honourable court is violation of article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta.
Claim of Mr sive Luigi was to add “sive Luigi” to his registered name “Aloisius”, as he always was and am still known as “Luigi” to everyone, ever since I was born in 1959. After obtaining legal counsel, he decided to lodge the plea in the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts to amend his name, based on the provisions of article 253(2) of the Civil Code.Any claim of cancellation of any registration or correction may only be filled before the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts.Civil court first hall or court of appeal has judection to hear appeal after the decision of Court of Revision of Notarial Acts. 

plea of res judicata
According to article 39(9) constitution of Malta matter is double jeopardy.Accused is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations.In Pakistan accused was acquitted in the charges under Article 419 PPC PAKISTAN. Punishment for cheating by personation : Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.Cheating by personation: A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation: The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person. Illustrations (a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name, A cheats by Personation. (b) A cheats by pretending to be , a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.
Point is  discussed in the judgment ‘The Police versus Gregory Paul Brincat’ of the 20th September 2012 and, to avoid unnecessary repetition, the Court is referring to the relevant paragraphs about the matter in that judgment. ‘ (When a fact violates more than one provision of the law Professor Mamo in his Notes on Criminal Law wrote as follows; ‘ In any such case if the agent is tried for any one of the several violations of the law arising out of that fact, be it even the least serious, and a judgement is given, it shall not be lawful to subject the agent to another trial for the more serious violations. This principle, first expressly affirmed in ‘Rex versus Rosaria Portelli’ has now become settled law.’.. Fil-fatt fit-2 ta’ Diċembru, 1939, l-Imħallef Harding fil-każ ‘Camilleri versus Cilia’ kien qal li huwa prinċipju stabbilit fil-urisprudenza tagħna li meta mill-istess fatt, mibni fuq l-istess intenzjoni, jinkisru żewġ drittijiet jew aktar, m’hemmx pluralita’ ta’ offiżi iżda offiża waħda bil-vjolazzjoni li jkunu iżghar jkunu assorbiti fil-vjolazzjoni l-aktar serja. U jekk persuna tkun iġġudikata ghal wahda mill-vjolazzjonijiet u jkun meħlus jew jinsab ħati, is-sentenza iżżomm kull prosekuzzjoni ġdida li tista’ ssir għal kull vjolazzjoni oħra, ukoll jekk il-vjolazzjoni li jkun tressaq fuqha l-ewwel darba tkun l-anqas waħda serja.’ The part in Maltese freely translated reads as follows ‘On the 2nd December 1939, Mr Justice Harding in the case ‘Camilleri versus Cilia’ held that it is a principle of Maltese jurisprudence that when through the same fact, having the same intention, there are two or more violations of the law , there is no plurality of offences but one offence only with the minor offence being absorbed in the more serious one. And if a person is judged on one violation and is found guilty or is acquitted, the judgement will preclude the Prosecution from pressing charges on the other violation even if the first charge happened to carry a lower penalty than the second one. Once again the Court refers to the words ‘is judged’ appearing in bold in the English version.plea of autrefois acquit is based on the principle of justice and fairness.The common law authorities have accepted the proposition that the concept of double jeopardy may apply between two nations:  Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed. 1976), vol. 2, para. 88; R. v. Thomas, [1985] Q.B. 604 (C.A.). In this regard, Martin J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in R. v. Stratton (1978), 3 C.R. (3d) 289, at p. 298 (obiter), that the plea of autrefois acquit applies to foreign convictions.Maltese and Pakistani alleged offences belongs to same event and same fact.The Maltese charges are limited to events which occurred in Pakistan.
Case was essentially that the facts had already been adjudicated upon in Pakistan. Therefore, by reason of the res rudicata principle, those facts could not be adjudicated upon a second time in Malta.In Malta accused is charged with criminal offence arising from a single set of facts which accused is already acquitted by the honourable Pakistani trial court.
JUDGMENT R (on the application of Hysaj and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Bakijasi (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)before the supreme court of the United kingdom Lady Hale, President,Lord Kerr,Lord Wilson,Lord Hughes,Lord Hodge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
21 December 2017.The issue was whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under Law.X uses a false identity created by him (or someone on his behalf) and in that identity he acquires the characteristics needed to obtain citizenship. X applies for citizenship using the false identity Y. But X meets the requirements for citizenship albeit having acquired them by using the false identity Y. X is considered for citizenship by the Secretary of State in identity Y and is granted citizenship in that identity. In such a case, in the Secretary of State’s view, the grant of citizenship is valid, albeit that the person may later be deprived if their is any law to deprived such citizenship.UPON the Respondent accepting that the Appellants are British citizens by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”), and that that citizenship remains valid unless and until a formal deprivation order is made pursuant to section 40(3) of the 1981 Act AND UPON the Respondent accepting that her decisions, dated 13 February 2013 and 27 June 2013, that the Appellants’ British citizenships were ‘nullities’ (i.e. that the Appellants were not, and had never been, British citizens) were wrong in law.That without prejudice to the foregoing, plaintiff’s claims are unfounded in fact and at law and should be denied. 
According to the article  5(l) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta defendant is Maltese national by birth.Article 5(1) Every person born in Malta on or after the appointed day shall be deemed to have become or shall become, a citizen of Malta at the date of his birth.
That defendant is Maltese citizen by 
Birth under article 5(1) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta and that that citizenship remains valid permanently because There is no law which can allow to deprive a person of his Maltese citizenship by birth.Defendant is already acquitted by honourable Pakistani trial court with same allegations.
In the case of defendant,defendant is having a valid Maltese citizenship by birth and defendant has single citizenship Maltese.Their is no law which can deprive the Maltese citizenship of Maltese national by birth.In the light of the judgement of supreme court of the United kingdom action of the plaintiff director public registry Malta should be dismissed.

Plea of prescription
According to the article 688a,b,c,d,E and f alleged offences are time barred because alleged offences were committed in 2007.According to CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta civil action is time barred because midwife statement of birth is more than 30 years older.
That the civil action against defendant had been barred by lapse of time on the grounds that the time limit for filing an civil action resulting from a criminal offence is the same as the period established by law for the taking of the criminal action.That in terms of law article 688(e) criminal code Malta the time limit for filing criminal action for alleged offences under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta is around 2 years. The applicable time limit for the filing of civil action was therefore also 2 years.
Alleged offences under article 263 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta punishment is 3 months should be time barred in 2 year according to the article 688(e) criminal code Malta.
In relation to criminal matters, Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 uk states that normally a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.Article 127(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.That according to the Belgium court would not have to give judgments actions based on evidence that had become uncertain with the passing of time.
In most continental legal systems the
State’s right to initiate criminal proceedingsis subject to time-limits. Once those timelimits have elapsed, the right to prosecute istime-barred by application of the relevantlegislation. Several reasons are adduced to justify
placing a time-bar on the State’s right toprosecute. For example, it is argued that aftera certain number of years have passed, it isbetter for the sake of social peace to let thepast rest rather than to revive the socialunrest caused by the alleged offence. If theState acts negligently in failing to bring thedefendant to trial within the establishedtime-limits, that may justify society losingits right to punish the individuals concerned.Finally, on a more practical level, the moretime that has elapsed since the allegedoffence, the more difficult it is likely to beto obtain reliable evidence and to hold a fairtrial.If the action is filed after the six months then authorisation for amendments to the birth certificate is not allowed. This was held in Nadine Falzon -v- Jalil Zaneldin, decided on 7 December 2016, which upheld a plea raised by the Public Registry that the six months period had elapsed. 
There is violation of article 7 of ECHR to start criminal proceedings together with civil proceedings when alleged offences are time barred.

plea of nullity of acts
Defendant strongly confirm that defendant  Ahmad Aziz is Maltese national by birth automatically under the laws of Malta and defendant has single citizenship Maltese.defentant was born in Malta dated 1 November 1983.plaintiff director public registry Malta sworn application is not listed with the articles of law.
The sworn application does not identify the applicable law.
Sworn application of plaintiff is against facts because defendant is a Maltese national by birth automatically under the laws of Malta and defendant has single citizenship Maltese.
That without prejudice to the foregoing, plaintiff’s claims are unfounded in fact and at law and should be denied. 
According to the article  5(l) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta defendant is Maltese national by birth.Article 5(1) Every person born in Malta on or after the appointed day shall be deemed to have become or shall become, a citizen of Malta at the date of his birth.
That defendant is Maltese citizen by 
Birth under article 5(1) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta and that that citizenship remains valid permanently because There is no law which can allow to deprive a person of his Maltese citizenship by birth.Article 5(1) CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta restricts the plaintiff director public registry Malta to file any action for cancellation of any act of birth registered in Malta because defendant is a Maltese national by birth automatically under the laws and citizenship of Maltese national by birth may not be deprived.
 Article 5(1) Chapter 188 Laws of Malta restricts the cancellation of any act of birth registered in Malta of Maltese citizens by birth automatically under the laws of Malta.
Any action for the cancellation of any act of birth may not deprived the Maltese citizenship of Maltese national when a citizen becomes Maltese national by birth automatically under the laws under article 5(1) chapter 188 Laws of Malta.plaintiff director public registry Malta action is unfounded in point of law.
Plaintiff director public registry Malta claim is contrary with article 22 Constitution of Malta The acquisition, possession, renunciation and loss of Maltese citizenship shall be regulated by law and their is no law which can allow the lost of Maltese citizenship of Maltese national by birth.Any action or claim or law which allows to file claim for the cancellation of any act of birth of Maltese citizen by birth should be declared null and void according to article 6 constitution of Malta because their is no law which can allow the loss of Malta citizenship of Maltese national by birth automatically under the laws of Malta.
That furthermore, the action is not legally admissible given the fact that no person may disturb the status conferred by the act of birth and the presumption it creates and this action is therefore an attempt to disrupt the good order of the family.
Defendant is never involved in any alleged false declaration.
False declaration is not presumed but must be proved,proven before a court ‘established by law’, which in defendant case are the courts of criminal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff director public registry Malta did not pointed out the nature and kind of alleged fraud.
Fraud is not presumed but must be proved,proven before a court ‘established by law’, which in defendant case are the courts of criminal jurisdiction.
Civil court Malta has only judection in the claims of alleged fraud in contract or agreement between 2 or more parties defined in CHAPTER 16 and 12 laws of Malta.plaintiff claim is not the case of alleged fraud in any contract or agreement between plaintiff and defendant defined in CHAPTER 16 and 12 laws of Malta.Revocation of Maltese Citizenship, also known as Deprivation of Citizenship. Its legal effect is that a person ceases to be a Maltese citizen once the Minister responsible makes an order to such effect.  Essentially, deprivation may only ensue in respect of persons who acquired Maltese citizenship by registration or naturalisation
There is no law which can allow to deprive a person of his Maltese citizenship by birth.
Chapter 188 laws of Malta Article 14. (l) Subject to the provisions of this article, the Minister may by order deprive of his Maltese citizenship any citizen of Malta who is such by registration or naturalisation if he is satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.
Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta in case number 421/18 again defendant is violation of constitution of Malta article 22,violation of citizenship act CHAPTER 188 laws of Malta.
Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta in case number 421/18 again defendant is violation of
1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 151961: Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, articles 1-41965: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 5(d)(iii)1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 241989: The Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 7-82006: Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness According to UNICEF Birth registration is the continuous, permanent, and universal recording, within the civil registry, of the occurrence and characteristics of birth in accordance with the legal requirements of a country. It is a right of all children recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 7), and other instruments support birth registration as well as the right to a name and a nationality. 
ACCORDING to the Human Rights Council
Twenty-seventh session Agenda items 2 and 3Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General birth registration record may not be distryed.European convention on nationality 
Article 7 – Loss of nationality ex lege or at the initiative of a State Party
1)A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases: 
b)acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant; 
7.3) A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article if the person concerned would thereby become stateless, with the exception of the cases mentioned in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, of this article.
Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta in case number 421/18 again defendant is violation of AG Malta opinion number AG 2396/13
According to the UNICEF birth registration record is confidential and no information may be provided to any person regarding birth record.Civil proceedings instituted by the director public registry Malta in case number 421/18 again defendant is violation of data protection laws.
Central Registry Act, 2008
29 May 2008, The House of Representatives  continued debating the Central Registry Bill which was then later approved.
Article 9 (3)(b) records and documents, including indexes, registers and volumes which up to the day of the coming into force of this Act were preserved in the Public Registry of Malta in terms of the civil Code, the Public Registry Act, or the Marriage Act, or any other law; 
Article 14. (1) The Registrar General shall head the Central Registry Office and all its branches, and shall receive on account of the Government, the fees levied in accordance with the tariff as may from time to time be prescribed, and in accordance with Part I of the Schedule to the Civil Code.
(2) The Registrar General shall have:(a) the functions, powers and duties vested in him by the provisions of this Act;(b) the functions previously assigned to the Director of the Public Registry and the Land Registrar in virtue of any other law;Article 28 (3) Any question as to the regularity of the note shall, on the demand of the person filing the note, be determined by the Supervisory Committee, which Committee shall decide whether such note is drawn up according to law or otherwise direct the manner in which it shall be drawn up and such decision, which shall be taken within two months from referral by the person filing the registrable act,shall be final. Referral shall be made in terms of regulations as may be prescribed, provided that the Registrar shall make an annotation to the effect that the matter has been referred for the decision of the Committee herein referred to.Article 29. (1) Registrable acts are those acts, certificates, declarations,notices, plans, reports, rights, interests or similar record or act, which in order to have effect against third parties must be registered in the Registry.
Article 36. The following acts of civil status or acts of civil life and matters ancillary thereto, are personal registrable acts:
(a) Act of Birth;Article 37. (1) The following shall also be deemed to be personal registrable acts:
(b) Any court judgement or decree, including judgement or decree granted by a court of foreign jurisdiction but which is recognised or confirmed in terms of the laws of Malta which:(i) affects the status of an individual;
Article 58 . (1) The Registrar may, at his discretion, make any annotation to a title to reflect any relevant information he obtains either from a registrable act or from any other source.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subarticle, the Registrar shall make such an annotation if there is a discrepancy between the note filed in terms of article 25 of this Act and the registrable act which gave rise to the filing of the note.(3) If any person proves, to the satisfaction of the Registrar,that any such annotation is incorrect and should be modified or deleted,he may do so in the prescribed manner, and if the Registrar does not effect the changes required of him within the prescribed time, the procedure set out in Part 6 of this Act shall be followed.73. (1) The register, in so far as it affects acts of civil status,may only be amended, corrected or rectified as provided for in Book
First, Of Persons, of the Civil Code, so however that where a person requests the registration of the name or names which he shall have used or shall have been used for him by his family, and in the opinion of the Registrar, such name or names are those by which the person has been consistently called, in substitution of the name or names appearing on the relative act of birth as the name or names given to the deed and the name or names by which the child is to be called, the Registrar shall issue a notice in the Gazette and if there is no objection within fifteen days from the publication of such notice, he shall proceed to rectify the register.Article 77 (4) A court shall not make an order for the rectification of the register unless the registrar is a party to the proceedings in respect of which the order is made.
Article 88 (6) The Public Registry Act is hereby repealed.
(8) Upon the coming into force of sub-article (6) or (7), as the case may be, of this article or upon the making of an Order withrespect to any area, act, note, registration, contract or class of persons under sub-articles (1) or (2) hereof, any act which has been registered under the provisions of the Public Registry Act or the Land Registry Act, as the case may be, or which prior to such coming into force of the said sub-articles in Order should have been registered in the Public registry or the Land Registry, where duly registered, shall be deemed to have been duly registered under this Act, and where no such registration has been made, may be registered in the Central Registry under the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall in all cases apply thereat.(9) Any action commenced against or by the Director of the Public Registry or the Land Registrar before the enactment of this
Act under the laws referred to in sub-articles (6) or (7) or under any other law shall be continued against or by the Registrar General under the same procedures and before the same adjudicatory authorities applicable thereto before the enactment of this Act.89. The Civil Code shall be amended as follows:–
(1) Article 253 thereof shall be amended as follows –(a) in subarticle (1) thereof, for the words “It shall be lawful for”, there shall be substituted the words “Subject to what is statedCentral registry act Malta 2003 Bill entitled the Central Registry Act, 2003. Government Gazette of Malta No. 17,487 – 1 7th October, 2003.10. (1) The Central Registry databank shall consist of such electronic databanks, saved in a read-only format, as may, from time to time be compiled and or prescribed, such databank containing a reproduction of the notes, registrable act, or other document, as may be filed in terms of this Act, including those which, up to the coming into force of this Act, were kept at the Public Registry or Land Registry in terms of any law.27. (1) All registrable acts which, in terms of this Act or of any other law, have to be registered in the Central Registry, must be filed at the Registry, by the person and within the time, as may be prescribed,and shall be drawn up in such manner and shall be accompanied by such documents and information, as the Minister may, from time to time, prescribe, provided that when the Minister prescribes that filing of notes may be done electronically, the acknowledgement mentioned in subarticle (4) hereof may also be done electronically.(2) The Minister may, notwithstanding any other law,impose any penalty in case of non-performance, both for the non-performance of the obligation to file the note or act within the established time, as well as for the delay in the performance thereof, unless theperson obliged to file the note or act proves that the non-performance or delay was due to an extraneous cause not imputable to him.(3) The obligation of any person or official to file a note or act, shall be deemed to have been complied with, if the note or act is submitted by any other interested party instead of the person or official whose duty it is to file same. Nevertheless the person or official who fails to perform his obligations may still be subject to the penalties mentioned in the preceding subarticle as well any other action that may be taken in terms of this Act or in any other law for mere delay.Article 28 (4) Within the same period of three working days from date of filing in any Central Registry Office, the Registrar shall register the said note or Act, as may be prescribed, in one of the databases mentioned in article 10 of this Act. (5) Registration shall have effect at 9.00 a.m. of the first working day following the date of the day-book wherein the note or act as recorded in the database is contained.(7) Within a period of six months, the Registrar shall ensure that a copy of all notes and acts, including the accompanying documents,is prepared, provided that where the Registrar makes an electronic copy or back-up thereof, the provisions of this sub-article shall be deemed to have been complied with.Article 29 (2) The day-book shall be accessible only to the Supervisory Committee, such that this Committee may examine the day-book at quarterly intervals, ensuring that no two notes or acts, of the same nature,are assigned the same numbers, ensuring also that no number is left unassigned.
(3) If any difficulty arises in connection with the provisions of sub-article (2) hereof, the Supervisory Committee shall give suchdirections as it may deem fit, provided that any person aggrieved may apply to the Tribunal.37. (1) A registrable act, of whatever kind, once registered at the Central Registry, shall be operative in regard to third parties, asfrom the date and time mentioned in sub-article (5) of article 28.Article 30. (1) The Registrar shall not receive a note or act unless this is regularly drawn up and is accompanied by such documents,
information and fees, if any, as established in this Act or as shall be prescribed by the Minister from time to time:Provided that the Registrar may, at his discretion, accept a note or act notwithstanding that documents or information are missingand in such case the Registrar shall make an annotation stating that documents or information still need to be filed, so long as the note or act is regularly drawn up.(3) Notes or acts shall be drawn in the prescribed manner and the Minister may prescribe different criteria for different purposes,provided that all notes or acts must, notwithstanding any other law –
(a) be typewritten or computer-generated;(b) be signed by the person filing the note or act in such a way as to make such person’s identity easily identifiable providedthat an electronic signature or mark, as may be prescribed, shall suffice;(c) be drawn up in clear and legible characters and any corrections, substitutions, cancellations and additions by means of a postil at the foot thereof, in such a way that the words corrected, substituted or cancelled are to remain clearly legible;(4) Any question as to the regularity of the note shall, on the demand of the person filing the note, be determined by theSupervisory Committee, which Committee shall decide whether such note is drawn up according to law or otherwise direct the manner in which it shall be drawn up and such decision, which shall be taken within two months from referral by the person filing the registrable act,shall be final. Referral shall be made in terms of regulations as may be prescribed, provided that the Registrar shall make an annotation to the effect that the matter has been referred for the decision of the Committee herein referred to.Article 40. The following acts of civil status or acts of civil life and matters ancillary thereto, as prescribed in Book First, Of Persons, of the Civil Code, are deemed to be personal registrable acts:
(a) Acts of Birth
Article 94 . The Civil Code shall be amended as follows:–
(1) Article 253 thereof shall be amended as follows –(a) in subarticle (1) thereof, for the words “It shall be lawful for”, there shall be substituted the words “Subject to what is stated in subarticle (2), it shall be lawful”;(b) subarticle (2) thereof shall be substituted by the following –”(2) Any person may apply in terms of article 79 of the Central Registry Act, for the registration of the name or names, which name or names the person shall have used or shall have been used for him by his family, and in respect of which it shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the officer examining the claim, that such was the name or names by which the person has been consistently called, in substitution of the name or names appearing on the relative act of birth as the name or names given to the child and the name or names by which the child is to be called:Provided that prior to such substitution, a notice is issued in the Gazette, and if an objection is lodged or where the applicant is unsuccessful, the applicant shall be entitled to make an action, by way of appeal, as provided in subarticle (4) hereof.Article 95 (3) Article 110 thereof shall be amended as follows:–
(a) in subarticle (1), for the words “and the Public Registry shall be exercised by a special court called the “Court of Revision of Notarial Acts” “, there shall be substituted the words, “and the Central Registry, shall be exercised by a committee, to be known as Supervisory Committee, and suchCommittee shall, in addition to the functions assigned to it in terms of the Central Registry Act, also function as a special court, to be called the “Court of Revision of Notarial Acts.There is criminal proceedings going on in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz in the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech.To file claim NUMBER 421/18 in the  civil court first hall it has raised the issue of Parallel litigation, Parallel litigation is a scenario in which different courts are hearing the same claim.
The terms parallel proceedings,duplicative litigation, refer to the simultaneous prosecution of two or more suits in which at least some of the issues and parties are so closely related that the judgment of one will necessarily have effect on other case . It is therefore requested to dismiss plaintiff’s case number 421/18 because matter is already pending before the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech.

Plea of non SUIT of plaintiff case 
Violation of article 199 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta.According to article 199 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta defendant is entitled to demand non SUIT of plaintiff’s case with cost because dated 21/01/2020 plaintiff remained absent in court hearing.
Chapter 12 laws of Malta article 568.(2) No adjournment of a cause shall be granted for the purpose of enabling the parties to summon witnesses, or on the ground of the non-attendance of any witnesses summoned.Dated 07/10/2019 honourable court adjourned the court because of non-attendance of witness.

Plea of capacity of the plaintiff 
That the plaintiff director public registry Malta has no legal capacity to  file action for the cancellation of any registration of birth against the defendant in case number 421/2018.
Article 242 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta. (l) The Director shall not receive any act which is not written in clear and legible characters, or which contains abbreviations, or which may appear to him to be otherwise defective or irregular.
 (2) In any such case, the act shall be presented by the Director to the retired Judge or retired Magistrate or retired advocate of the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, who, after hearing, if necessary,the person by whom the act shall have been made, shall determine the manner in which, according to law, the act is to be drawn up.Chapter 16 laws of Malta article  260.(l) The registers as well as the acts and documents annexed thereto shall be inspected twice in every year by the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts.
 (2) The first inspection shall take place during the months of March and April, and the second during the months of September and October.Article 261. The court shall in the course of such inspection, ascertain whether the provisions of this Title have been complied with by the Director or one of the Assistant Directors or of the officers mentioned in sub-article (l) of article 306, as the case may be, and it shall be lawful for the court, in respect of any contravention, to inflict upon the Director or an Assistant Director or an officer  mentioned in sub-article (1) of article 306, as the case may require, a fine (ammenda) not exceeding eleven euro and sixty-five cents (11.65):
 Provided that, where the contravention consists in the omission of anything which is required to be done under this Title and it is not possible for the court to ascertain who was responsible for such omission, the contravention shall be deemed to have been committed by the Director and the punishment shall be inflicted accordingly.Article 272 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta In the case of every child born, it shall be the duty of parents, and in default of both, of the physician, surgeon, midwife,or any other person in attendance at the birth, or in whose house the birth has taken place, to give, within fifteen days of such birth, notice thereof to the officer charged with the duty of drawing up the act of birth.According to the article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta director public registry Malta has no legal authority to file any action for the cancellation of any registration.
Violation of article 253,254 chapter 16 laws of Malta 
According to Article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta. (l) It shall be lawful for any person to bring an action for the correction or cancellation of any registration, or for registration of any act which the Director, with the approval of retired Judge or retired Magistrate or retired advocate of the Revision of Notarial Acts, shall have refused to receive.Article 253(4) CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta any action shall be brought by way of sworn application before the competent court against the Director.
Article 254. (l) Fifteen days at least before the hearing of the action referred to in the last preceding article, a notice as in Form B in Part Il of the First Schedule to this Code shall, by order of the court, be published in the Government Gazette, calling upon any party interested to declare, within fifteen days from the publication
 of such notice, by means of a note, whether he desires to contest the action.(2) Notice of the day appointed for the trial of the action shall be given to any person who shall have filed such note within the said time.According to article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta Director public registry has no authority/capacity to file any action for cancellation of any registration.According to Article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta. (l) It shall be lawful for any person to bring an action for the correction or cancellation of any registration,any person mean interested party,parents  or adult himself or herself may file action under article 253 CHAPTER 16 laws of Malta against Director public registry.

Violation of article 469A CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta Saving as is otherwise provided by law, the courts of justice of civil jurisdiction may enquire into the validity of any administrative act or declare such act null, invalid or without effect only in the following cases:
 (a) where the administrative act is in violation of the Constitution; (b) when the administrative act is ultra vires on any of the following grounds:
 when such act emanates from a public authority that is not authorised to perform it; or when a public authority has failed to observe the principles of natural justice or mandatory procedural requirements in performing the administrative act or in its prior deliberations thereon; or when the administrative act constitutes an abuse of the public authority’s power in that it is done for improper purposes or on the basis of irrelevant considerations; or when the administrative act is otherwise contrary to law.According to the Central registry act Malta 2003 Bill entitled the Central Registry Act, 2003. Government Gazette of Malta No. 17,487 – 1 7th October, 2003 role of director public registry does not exist any action for cancellation of any registration of birth filed by the director public registry Malta should be dismissed.
Director public registry Malta claim is violation of article 22 constitution of Malta.


Plea of desertion Desertion of the case because a case set down for hearing and that the plaintiff failed to act diligently in the conduct of the proceedings.This lack of diligence is apparent throughout: plaintiff  failed to appear for the hearing of the case; plaintiff allowed around two years to lapse before filing their evidence. Observed that, while the conduct of the plaintiff is relevant in assessing the State’s responsibility for unreasonably long judicial proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to ensure that, notwithstanding the casual attitude of the plaintiff, proceedings are conducted expeditiously, and to use all  means allowed by law for that end.Chapter 12 laws of Malta Article  154. (l) The procedure by sworn application is considered to institute a cause, when the court issues or gives an order to a party to appear before it on the day and at the hour appointed, in order to show cause why the claim contained in the sworn application should not be allowed. (2) In the appointment of such day allowance shall be made for the time required for the preliminary written procedures of the case to be closed, provided that in urgent cases the court may appoint a day for the trial of the case before the close of the preliminary written procedures.Chapter 12 laws of Malta article 568.(2) No adjournment of a cause shall be granted for the purpose of enabling the parties to summon witnesses, or on the ground of the non-attendance of any witnesses summoned.Dated 07/10/2019 honourable court adjourned the court because of non-attendance of witness.
Violation of article 199 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta.According to article 199 CHAPTER 12 laws of Malta defendant is entitled to demand non SUIT of plaintiff’s case with cost because dated 21/01/2020 plaintiff remained absent in court hearing.
Chapter 12 laws of Malta article 963. (l) Saving the provisions of sub-article (3) and of articles 416 and 420, the written pleadings in any cause shall be closed, in first instance, within the peremptory time of six months, and, in second instance, within the peremptory time of one year.
 (2) The time shall commence to run, in first instance, from the day on which the sworn application is filed, and, in second instance, from the date of the application of appeal for the reversal or variation of the judgment appealed from.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT THE HON. MR. JUSTICE — ACTING PRESIDENT GIANNINO CARUANA DEMAJO THE HON. MR. JUSTICE NOEL CUSCHIERI THE HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH ZAMMIT MC KEON Sitting of the 10 th March, 2014 Civil Appeal Number. 57/2010/1 Gernot Knoess and M. Architecture Limited versusThe Attorney General, the Commissioner of Police and the Registrar of Courts.According to the honourable court it is also the  duty of the court to ensure that,notwithstanding the casual attitude of the parties, proceedings are conducted expeditiously, and to use all means allowed by law for that end. Indulging parties who take a cavalier attitude towards the proceedings is not conducive to a proper conduct of those proceedings. The institute of desertion is a strong disincentive to carelessness and nonchalance should not be rendered ineffective through a too accommodating interpretation.
Breach of right of fair hearing in reasonable time because of COVID-19 in case The Director public registry vs Ahmad Aziz 
Yorgen Fenech’s rights were breached by public health restrictions imposed because of COVID-19, a court has ruled.Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff delivered the ruling  dated 29 May 2020 in a constitutional case filed by Fenech, accused with complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, against the Superintendent of Public Health.Lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran, Marion Camilleri and Charles Mercieca, appearing for Fenech, had argued amongst other things that the Legal Notices which suspended all court proceedings due to the pandemic had infringed his right to justice within a reasonable time.In his decision, handed down 29 May 2020, the judge declared that Fenech’s rights had indeed been breached.
According to regulation 19(8)4 of Subsidiary Legislation 12.09 (Court Practice and Procedure and Good Order Rules) Once a case has been set down for hearing, the court seized of the matter shall ensure that the hearing of the case shall be expeditious, and the hearing of the case shall continue to be heard on consecutive days, and where this is not possible on dates close to one another. The court shall subsequently give its decision without any delay.

Plea of violation of right of silence 
 That there is another suit pending in the court of Magistrate of criminal inquiry Malta  involving the same action in the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech the police vs Aziz Ahmad.Right of silence is constitutional right of a person and direct public registry Malta has violated article 39 constitution of Malta to start CIVIL proceedings against defendant when criminal proceedings are going on with same facts.
Violation of right of silence to file civil action when criminal proceedings are going on with same facts is breach of article 6 ECHR and breach of article 39 constitution of Malta.
Dated 12 November 2018 Respondent Ahmad Aziz produced by plaintiff took the witness stand. The parties refer to the fact that there are pending criminal proceedings against the respondent is violation of right of silence of respondent(Self-incrimination)is violation of article 6 of ECHR and article 39 constitution of Malta.The right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself under Article 6(1)prevents the prosecution from obtaining evidence by defying the will of the accused not to testify against himself.ECHR Brusco v. France 14 October 2010 The applicant, who was suspected of having masterminded an aggression, was taken into police custody and questioned as a witness, after being made to swear to tell the truth.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself) of the Convention. According to the Court,the applicant was not a mere witness but a person “charged with a criminal offence”, and as such should have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer until his 20th hour in police custody. Had a lawyer been present, he would have been able to inform the applicant of his right to remain silent.

Plea of the non admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence According to Article 156 (4) of the COCP, together with a Sworn Application the Applicant shall also give the names of the witnesses he intends to produce in evidence stating in respect of each of them the facts and proof he intends to establish by their evidence.”Plaintiff director public registry Malta failed to stating in respect of each of witness the facts and proof he intends to establish by their evidence.156 (8) When the proof intended to be established by each witness is not stated or adequately stated in the declaration, the court shall on the first day appointed for the pretrial hearing order the plaintiff to indicate adequately the proof he intends to establish by each witness within a time to be fixed by the court.Chapter 12 laws of Malta article 558. All evidence must be relevant to the matter in between the parties. Plaintiff’s submitted witnesses are not relevant.Only direct evidence is acceptable in the case of forgery. Article 559. In all cases the court shall require the best evidence the party may be able to produce.According to best evidence rules article 559 alleged forged documents are not original these are only photocopies which does not exist, in the case of forgery only original forged documents are admissible.I can strongly confirm that I was never in possession of any forged documents and I have nothing to do with any forgery and I only have single citizenship Maltese,their are no original forged documents available and their is no forgery because I am never a usa citizen and my parents were married in Pakistan as proof attached marriage and death certificates of my parents,I can strongly confirm that I never submitted or I was never in possession of alleged photocopies mentioned by director public registry Malta together with Maltese police.I can strongly confirm that i am born in Sliema Malta dated 1 November 1983.As alleged offences are of 2007 according to Criminal code article 688a,b,c,d, and f matter is time barred and double jeopardy as I am already acquitted by the honourable court with same allegations I am facing a criminal case together with civil proceedings against me in Malta.It is also important to note that I was not resident in Malta before 2010.
Article  560. (l) The court shall disallow any evidence which it considers to be irrelevant or superfluous, or which it does not consider to be the best which the party can produce.
635. Where it shall be necessary to ascertain the handwriting of any person by whom a document has been written or signed, such proof may be made – (a) by the person who wrote or signed the document acknowledging his own handwriting; (b) by means of witnesses who actually saw the person write or sign the document; (c) by means of witnesses who, although they have not seen the person write or sign the document, are acquainted with his handwriting; (d) by the comparison of handwritings, or by other circumstances or presumptions; (e) by means of experts in handwriting, in cases of writings difficult to verify.563A. (l) Where a person is called as a witness, his opinion on any relevant matter on which he is qualified to give expert evidence shall be admissible in evidence only if, in the opinion of the court,he is suitably qualified in the relevant matter.
(3) The opinion given by any person according to the provisions of this article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of article 681 and to the court’s power to appoint a referee according to the provisions of article 646.646. (l) Where the parties agree on the submission of a name of a referee, the court shall appoint the referee agreed upon by the
 parties.(2) Where the parties fail to agree, the court shall appoint a referee of its own choice.
Court did not asked the parties to submission the name of a handwriting expert.court appointed handwriting expert with out asking from the parties to submission the name of a handwriting expert.
 Handwriting expert report is not admissible.As my handwriting was examined by the expert It is important to note that expert is not in possession of any signatures and handwriting of person’s he was required to examine,Expert examined handwriting through photocopies, Would a document examiner worth his or her salt settle for the examination of photocopies?  I would say not.  An analogy I frequently use is the difference between a dried leaf and a living leaf.  Much of what can be found in a living leaf, has long disappeared in a dead leaf.So much of the story of the writing is lost in a photocopy and the further along the generation of copy, the more is lost.  So often I am asked to examine documents which are  photocopies with such poor writing specimens, that it is not viable to examine the writing.   I generally insist on examining original documents with original writing on it as one of the main features of the writing which needs to be examined closely is the line quality which provides a great deal of information.  Such information includes, the pen pressure, how the pen moved along the paper, possible physical, mental and age related features, pen pressure on the paper and the ink quality.  All those features are lost in photocopies.In a photocopy, any tell tale marks of tracing, erasure, indentations and other methods or signs of forgery, are lost.  Where there are breaks in a line of writing, in a photocopy, was it as a result of the printing process?  Or forgery? Or physical, mental or age related conditions?photocopies tend to shrink the size of the original writing and printing and measurements of letters can therefore not reveal potential similarities and or differences.To examine Ahmad Aziz handwriting with Louise McDonald Midwife expert must have original handwriting of Louise McDonald Midwif.According to law evidence submitted by police and AG is tottaly inadmissible and time barred.Handwriting expert opinion may not take place of evidence because in the case of forgery only direct evidence is acceptable.
According to European Network of Forensic Science Institutes Best Practice Manual for the Forensic Examination of Handwriting Whether the handwriting is original or in the form of a copy document. If possible and practicable examine the original documents. [ 9.7 of this procedure before continuing].Examination of copy documents
9.7.1 Copy documents (such as photocopies, faxes, microfiche copies) do not contain all  of the detail present in the original documents, and the quality of copy documents varies from item to item. If an examination and comparison is to be made using copy documents, the following observations must be made:1.Determine the clarity of the copy document. Is the handwriting sufficiently detailed for comparison purposes?2.Comment in the notes on the fact that copy documents have been examined3.There must be a disclaimer that the examination is commenting only on the handwriting and is not commenting on the authenticity of the document.4.There must be comment within the notes that the results of any examination may be limited due to the fact that copy documents have been examined.If the clarity of the copy document is poor, then comment should be made to this effect, and no significance should be attributed to any comparison made. 637. (l) It shall be lawful to demand the production of documents which are in the possession of other persons.642. The production of documents may be demanded at any stage of the cause, so long as evidence may still be adduced.Court should ordered the plaintiff to submit the original alleged forged documents and Mrs Borg should submit documents related to ownership of 125 the strand Gzira.Mrs Borg testimony is not admissible because it is not relevant to the fact as defendant is a Maltese national by birth and Mrs Borg is giving testimony related to event which took place in 1983 which is time barred according to the Maltese law.
That according to the Belgium court would not have to give judgments actions based on evidence that had become uncertain with the passing of time.So that Mrs Borg testimony is with the passing of time.
Plaintiff director public registry Malta also failed to produce Midwife Lousie MacDonald Mid wife testimony as mentioned in the witness list of plaintiff sworn application.
June 2006/07 the Director of Health, Ray Cachia, had filed a police report as he was concerned about the manner in which a baby’s birth had been registered.Dr Cachia told the police that the Public Registry had pointed out a discrepancy in the note of birth of the baby with regard to the mother’s particulars and that the midwife’s signature had been falsified.The baby boy was born last May and, later that month, a couple had registered the birth, with the woman declaring she was the child’s natural mother.Both individuals admitted to the police they had falsified the hospital documentation about the birth of the baby but had done so to protect the child’s natural mother, who was 17 years old when she had the baby.the court held the evidence of the midwife who had delivered the baby. She said she had delivered the baby boy and had registered this in the hospital’s books. However, the birth certificate indicated a different woman as being the baby’s mother.In the claim of director public registry Malta plaintiff failed to produce Midwife Lousie MacDonald.
In the case of plaintiff director public registry Malta, defendant is never involved in any alleged fraud or forgery and criminal proceedings are still going on and their is no report of Director public registry or director health department against defendant and neither any one filed report against defendant in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz.
Accused is never in possession of any alleged forged documents and during investigation accused confirmed that accused was never in possession of any alleged forged documents and accused never submitted any alleged forged documents to public registry Malta .Witnesses of plaintiff also testified that accused Ahmad Aziz did not submitted any alleged forged documents to the public registry.According to the testimony of Amanda Grech on the behalf of Director public registry dated 12th day of November, 2018:Dr Stephanie Ellul : In this particular case what can you tell the court about the registration of Mr Aziz? What documents do you have? Can you please maybe explain.Witness : In this case there was a power of attorney from Mr Ahmad Aziz, confirming the details of the birth. There is the marriage certificate of the parents, issued from an authority in Canada, that the marriage took place in Canada, there is the confirmation from the mid-wife and a copy of the passport of, the American passport of Mr Aziz.Are these documents, can you please state where the documents are authenticated or not?Witness : The documents are like certified from a foreign notary republic in Texas and that they were presented by Dr Pace as the notifier at the time of, when notification took place.Dr Stephanie Ellul : So you have said that the document that the department of public registry has is the statement of birth, the power of attorney, the copy, indicated copy of the American passport of Mr Aziz and a non authenticated copy of the act of marriage of his parents. What are the other two documents?Witness : There is the search that in the records of 1983 and 1984 Dr Stephanie Ellul : When was carried out?Witness : It was carried out back in 2007 prior to the registration.Dr Stephanie Ellul : Who asked for such search?Witness : It’s the department that do the search. The department of registry.Dr Stephanie Ellul : But was there any application or was it of its’ own instance, of its’ own the department just did the search on its’ own. Was there any application?Witness : There is an application, there is like a search that the department do. It’s not an application. Dr Stephanie Ellul : And the other document?Witness : It’s the act of birth. The actual act of birth.Dr Stephanie Ellul : Have you the original act of birth?Witness : I do have the original act of birth just in case you.According to the testimony of Dr Joseph pace advocate before the court of Dr Donatella Frendo Dimech in the case the Police vs Ahmad Aziz Dr pace confirmed that he did not submitted copy of the American passport of Mr Aziz and a non authenticated copy of the act of marriage of his parents and these documents were already in public registry Malta.
Defendant strongly confirm that defendant is having single citizenship Maltese and defendant has no American passport and neither defendant every visited USA.
Defendant strongly confirm that parents of defendant got married in Pakistan as proof attached defendant parents death and marriage certificates.
Defendant strongly confirms that defendant was never in possession of any alleged forged documents and defendant never submitted any alleged forged documents.
11th day of March, 2019 testimony of George Cremona Superintendent of police:
Dr Neil Harrison : Can you tell us about if you are involved and investigation in respect of Mr Ahmad Aziz?
Witness : I was involved since the end 2015 beginning of 2016.During that period commenced investigations in connection with Mr Ahmad Aziz, and subsequently after reviewing all the documentation forward to various VIPs in Malta including Prime Minister, President, Ombudsman, MEP, and other departments we came to the conclusion that the Citizenship by of the Citizenship of Mr Ahmad Aziz, may have been obtained due to forged and falsified documentation. I’m saying this because subsequently to our investigations the details of Mr Ahmad Aziz were inserted in the Shanghai Information System and he was subsequently arrested at the Malta International Airport on the 3rd May 2018. After being duly cautioned and given all rights at loan, he was, we proceeded to the General Headquarters where we began our interrogation. In fact I was present for the first interrogation of Mr Ahmad aziz, which was, sorry I correct myself for the second interrogation of Mr Ahmad Aziz, that being on the 5th of May 2018, and together with inspector Omar Zammit we have conducted the first interrogation. Here I have also a copy of the statement provided by Mr Ahmad Aziz, and he duly signed the, his statement. We also informed of his rights before the beginning of the interrogation. The most important in this investigation is that three particular documents were under review being the copy of the birth certificate issued by a certain Luisa McDonald indicated as being a midwife, the US Passport – copy of US Passport and the copy of certificate of marriage.Dr Neil Harrison : In the course of investigations I understand you obtained a copy original of this document?Witness : Copy. Copy. Because the original if I’m not mistaken was provided to during the Criminal Proceedings by the Dr Neil Harrison : Ok so there is an original certificate?Witness : Yes.Dr Neil Harrison : Ok you has this document in your possession?Witness : Yes.Court : The witness has exhibited 4 documents.
Dr Neil Harrison : So you said that you had already interrogated Mr Aziz. Did you asked any questions about this document? And what did he answered if you asked it?Witness : I can present also the copy of the statement.Dr Neil Harrison : Yes please. So is that a copy as well?Witness : Yes.Dr Neil Harrison : And the original is Witness : True copy of the original. Dr Neil Harrison : And where is the original?Witness : The original is at the proceeding, criminal proceedings for the Magistrate. Dr Neil Harrison : You’re about to mention another about something about another two documents.Witness : Yes. The US Passport provided by Mr Ahmad Aziz together with the certificate of marriage. When conducting inquires with our fore in counter parts, they have informed us that these documents does not exist. But we were not authorised to make use of that in the criminal proceedings. So we had to make the necessary arrangements to the mutual legal assistants and send letters rogatory both to the United States and also to the Canadian Authorities. If I’m not mistaken Dr Neil Harrison : 5 documents. As regards the birth certificate, 
we mentioned earlier, when you had interrogated Mr Aziz, what was his answer regarding those, that document in particular?Witness : That, he stated that these are not true fax that he was born in Malta and therefore he’s not aware of such documents. Dr Neil Harrison : He’s not aware of such document. He doesn’t know about it?Witness : Hmm.
The Police -v- Akram Amar Swayah of 8 May, 2006, where the court held that Article 656 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the Court is not bound to the opinion of the court expert. This was the position of the Constitutional Court in The Police v George Xuer
Testimony of witnesses and evidence produced  by plaintiff is violation of defendant’s constitutional,fundamental and human rights. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. when an illegal action is used by prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action this evidence is known as “fruit of the poisonous tree can be thrown out.when matter is time barred,double jeopardy and their is violation of right of silence Testimony of witnesses and evidence produced  by plaintiff is not admissible.

During police questioning accused was also questioned through video recording, all answers given thereto and all the proceedings related to the questioning of the suspect or accused person, shall where possible in the opinion of the interviewer be recorded by audio-visual means and in such case a copy of the recording shall be handed over to the suspect or the accused person following the conclusion of the questioning. Any such recording shall be admissible in evidence, unless the suspect or the accused persan alleges and proves that the recording is not the original recording and that it has been tampered with. No transcription need be made of the recording when used in proceedings before any court of justice of criminal jurisdiction, nor need the suspect or the accused person sign any written statement made following the conclusion of the questioning once all the questions and answers, if any are recorded on audiovisual means.Accused is never handed over a copy of his video recording.
Identity Malta attested alleged  forged documents it is violation of Right of fair hearing when alleged forged documents are only photocopies and does not exist,Court,police or plaintiff director public registry Malta do not have any original alleged forged documents so how may they certified photocopies of alleged forged documents when their is no original forged documents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s