Not sure. That might be a possibility, but perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt because "mad" wouldn't show up in spell-check. However, for editors or news staff not to catch it and change it by now is a little... ah...neglectful...
Then, there's the obvious government control of the media message on this event. And thus, the article would have gone through approval channels on what would be published - making your observation even more interesting, as someone would have caught it.
There's also the possibility that whoever wrote the statement made the mistake in their submission, but for this to have been published 4 days later by a "team" means it was a calculated released which went through an approval process. And quite possibly would not have been published without the submission of "a statement".
When media reports the news, it's usually timely, because reporters really just have to report the facts: who, what, when, where, why, how – with quotes and photos. A reporter could attend the event, get the necessary information and write something within 15 minutes. It's not rocket-science - it's a formula.
"A statement continued" would suggest a representative submitted the information (because the local media didn't bother to show up to report the news).
And Your Gibraltar TV would have to include the grievance in the statement or risk being known for what they are – biased.
They censor the news and Gibraltarians are growing tired of it.
Obviously, whoever submitted the information is also using a bit of PR - praising the police, and ending on a good note.