English translation:
Reference is made to the record of the court sitting of 15 June 2001, during which this Court, presided over at that time by another magistrate, appointed Psychiatrist Dr David Cassar to examine the accused.
On 12 June 2002, Psychiatrist Dr David Cassar [fol. 60] testified and explained that he had spoken at length with the accused and, after detailed evaluation, concluded without doubt that the accused was suffering from psychosis with delusions of persecution. He explained that at the beginning of the interviews the delusions were mild, but that they gradually increased. Initially, they were described as fixations and “overvalued ideas,” but with time they developed into what the psychiatrist referred to as “fixed and unshaken” delusions, whereby the accused lacked insight and did not realise that his thoughts were pathological. He concluded that psychiatric treatment was required [fol. 62].

Analysis

It should be noted that the statement, “at the beginning of the interviews the delusions were mild, but gradually increased,” is contradicted by the graph below showing the daily dosages of medication prescribed to me.

As can be seen, the dosage reached a peak of seven pills per day on 25 March 2002. It was reduced on 22 April 2002, increased again on 20 May 2002 (though it did not reach the previous peak of 25 March 2002), and then, on 22 June 2002 — the day after I was examined by three psychiatrists on 21 June 2002, including Dr David Cassar himself — it was reduced again to just four pills per day (in fact, two Stelazine 2mg tablets).

If the alleged delusions had truly been increasing, as he testified during the court sitting of 12 June 2002, one would reasonably have expected the dosage of medication to have been progressively increased accordingly, not reduced. A reduction in dosage would ordinarily suggest clinical improvement rather than deterioration.

It follows, therefore, that there is a contradiction between the testimony given in court and the documented changes in prescribed medication. This in itself raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.

Common sense and logic tell you that such a blatant liar as Psychiatrist David Cassar — who, not in some remote village band club, but in a courtroom during a court sitting, in front of the crucifix prominently affixed to the wall behind the magistrate himself — did not hesitate to intentionally and maliciously lie about me on one matter, would certainly not have hesitated to lie further about other matters, namely the alleged “delusions of persecution” he maliciously invented and claimed I was suffering from.

It shows how I ended up being innocently kidnapped and locked in a mental institution on 12 June 2002 because of his premeditated lies and false testimony, and because of the cover-ups of serious crimes he wanted to commit.

Ironically, he labeled me as mentally ill to discredit me and undermine my credibility, yet in the process, through his lies and contradictions, he lost none other than his own credibility.

It is also worth noting that the idea behind the words, "in the beginning of the interviews the delusions were light but slowly these began to increase," was meant to make me pay in both ways:

1. by depicting me as mentally fit when I committed the wrongdoings before the arrest — and God knows how much they would have fined me, considering all the favouritism Magistrate Carol Peralta had shown up to that point;
2. and by depicting me as having progressively become mentally ill afterwards, in order to lessen my credibility if I were to reveal the abuses I suffered after the arrest, portraying them as if they were merely my imagination — my “delusions.”

On the other hand, I had argued with Psychiatrist David Cassar during the appointments I had with him prior to the court sitting of 12 June 2002 that I had been depressed and not in control of myself before the arrest, in order to avoid responsibility for my wrongdoings, and that I had successfully recovered afterwards with the support of my family. This was proven by the nearly one year since my arrest during which I behaved well and always respected the extreme conditions of bail, among other things, despite never taking any treatment for these supposed “delusions.”

However, everything took another direction after I was seen by the three psychiatrists on 21 June 2002 for their court report. The fact that I kept emphasizing that there were people who had witnessed the abuses I suffered — including hearing Magistrate Carol Peralta threatening me with violence during the court sitting of 4 February 2002, just 128 days (4 months and 8 days) earlier — led them to maliciously attribute to me severe and chronic mental illnesses related to paranoia in order to further undermine my credibility. According to them, it would have been impossible for me not to have been severely mentally ill for a long time, possibly since birth, with Psychiatrist David Cassar even proposing the theory that I was a disabled person with missing dopamine in my brain.

This was yet another major contradiction: without any medication, I had been working before my arrest and continued working afterwards in a responsible job, and I never took a single day of sick leave despite all the illnesses and disabilities I was labelled with. I must truly have been a unique case — one in a billion — not only unique in the whole world but in the entire history of mankind. Never before had there existed someone with such contradictory characteristics.

The psychiatrists surely deserved the Nobel Prize in Medicine for such a remarkable feat in producing such blatantly false diagnoses of me as mentally ill.

As evidenced by the court record of 12 June 2002, the testimony of Psychiatrist David Cassar on that day was cited in the sentence delivered by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera on 28 June 2005. This testimony, despite being entirely false, was accepted in good faith, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, I was wrongfully sentenced to Mount Carmel Hospital. Furthermore, Cassar’s false statements were relied upon during the appeal, decided on 21 November 2005, which led to my continued confinement at Mount Carmel Hospital for exactly two months — after a Tribunal had approved my release, with the final ministerial approval letter was still pending at the relevant office.

The following is an extract from the court sitting of 12 June 2002, documenting the events of that day:

Psychiatrist David Cassar provided testimony that was blatantly false, to protect, among others, Magistrate Carol Peralta’s professional interests. The record reads as follows:
Dr. David Cassar, M.D., son of _, born in Saint Julians, residing in Attard, under oath and in the presence of the accused, states:
Court (Magistrate Carol Peralta): You are a medical doctor, correct? What is your specialty?
Witness (Dr. David Cassar): Psychiatrist.
Court: You were appointed by this Court to examine the accused, Nicholas Grech, and report on his mental state. Can you inform the Court of the progress you have made, the conclusions you have reached, and any recommendations you may have regarding this individual?
Witness: I examined Nicholas Grech thoroughly and spoke with him on multiple occasions, including sessions with the Probation Officer, Mary Grace Vella. I also discussed his case extensively with the Probation Officer. As directed by this Honorable Court, I also met with the Probation Officer and the victim together. Nicholas Grech suffers from psychosis with delusions of persecution. Initially, these were mild — what we term obsessions and overvalued ideas — but they have progressively intensified into fixed and unshakeable delusions. He lacks insight into his condition.

Analysis

Note how psychiatrists always use the same tactics when they want to discredit someone. It is always a repetition of the same pattern: they use polished labels to reduce a person to being “psychotic,” suffering from “paranoia” or “psychosis” (a lack of contact with reality), having “delusions,” or lacking “insight.”

Notice how Psychiatrist David Cassar clearly states that he spoke with the Probation Officer, Mary Grace Vella, “for a long time.” She was present for almost all the court sittings, particularly those that took place before 12-Jun-02, when Psychiatrist David Cassar was not present (the sitting of 12-Jun was his very first). She was present at the sitting of 5-Jul-01, when they tried to revoke my bail using a video that had actually been recorded before my arrest but was presented as if it had occurred afterward. She was also present at the court sitting of court sitting of 4-Feb-02, when I attempted to point out to Magistrate Carol Peralta the false testimony and evidence tampering. In response, he threatened me, saying: “Don’t respond to me because I will smash you against the wall.” Cassar surely spoke with her about these incidents, which I had raised with him in the preceding months and made him aware of.

Psychiatrist David Cassar, instead, under oath, fraudulently reduced and manipulated these events, portraying them as my “delusions of persecution.” Imagine a child telling the head of a school that a teacher abused him, and the head dismissing it as a delusion while intimidating, kidnapping, or drugging the child.

Therefore, Cassar cannot claim ignorance of what happened during these sittings. Even if he did not believe me because I was in the disadvantaged position of the accused, he could have inquired with her, as a Probation Officer, about these incidents during his “long” conversations with her. She was one of the four witnesses I later referred to the Commission for the Administration of Justice when reporting, among other matters, the abuses by Magistrate Peralta. Cassar is thus indirectly identifying her as complicit in the alleged conspiracy to have me maliciously labeled as mentally ill in order to protect Peralta’s career. She chose to align herself with powerful figures rather than assist me, the accused, and was complicit through her silence by failing to report these alleged crimes herself.

How to Discredit a Man by Declaring Him Mentally Ill

A man who, among other things, claims that false evidence was used against him in court in order to have his bail revoked. He was framed by the submission of a police statement in his name that did not bear his genuine signature, to the extent that he himself was accused of falsifying signatures. He also claims that, during another court hearing, he was threatened with violence by the Magistrate in the courtroom.

He is an obstinate person who cannot easily be silenced. He was not sufficiently intimidated or traumatized by the Magistrate’s threats of being smashed against the wall; instead, he escalated the situation. Any attempt to condition his mind or sedate him with medication has proven futile, either because the medication is ineffective or because he is not taking it at all.

Current situation:

There is no court order mandating treatment. The appointed psychiatrist’s official role is merely to issue a report. Yet the outcome is predetermined. No one will seriously question this report, as the Magistrate is complicit and his career in the judiciary is at stake.

No scientific testing is required to support the diagnoses that may follow. His lawyer has withdrawn. A legal aid lawyer will be appointed — not to pursue his allegations of abuse, but to contain them.

Objective:

Undermine his credibility before his accusations gain traction — especially since they implicate individuals in positions of power.

Strategy:

Call an urgent court hearing. Frame psychiatric “treatment” as necessary. Institutionalize him. The stigma alone will weaken his standing.

Label him with psychosis. Suggest delusions of persecution. Recast his allegations as symptoms. Transform claims into pathology.

Appoint additional psychiatrists to create the appearance of procedural fairness, knowing professional solidarity makes contradiction unlikely. A new lawyer pressures him: comply with medication if you want freedom; refuse, and remain confined. Acceptance of illness becomes the price of liberty.

Everything proceeds under the veneer of due process. Concern. Care. Protection. And thus credibility dissolves.

Sic transit gloria mundi.