LIVE: Compilation of evidence against Fearne & Co

11:50 | Sittlington steps off the witness stand and today’s hearing is drawing to a close. The case is deferred to 11 October, 09:30. Thanks for following our live blog. Julian Delia will summarise today’s court hearing later today in NEWZ MILL-QORTI.

---

11:45 | In a surreal twist, Debono asks the court for its protection while claiming that the witness is intimidating the defence by accusing them of obtaining confidential leaks. As the hearing draws to a close, Debono tries to squeeze in one last question.

The prosecution interjects and demands that the defence explains where they obtained the confidential information which the witness is being dragged over the coals for.

The defence does not explain, and is instead attempting to entrap the witness. Magistrate Leonard Caruana is not having it, and he warns the defence this will not be accepted.

Sittlington is asked to return one more time to the stand before wrapping up today’s hearing.

Debono gets his final question in: “am I correct in saying that in the process of you trying to sell your services to Malta’s police, did you make reference to ongoing cases which were being investigated by the FCID?”

The witness says that he will have to check his emails to be able to provide a certain reply, though he is aware of having corresponded with the police commissioner about other inquiries which he was professionally involved in.

He is asked to bring all evidence related to correspondence with the police.

The witness is asked about how much he has been paid for the services he provided to this inquiry, and he says he does not remember what exactly he was paid or when. He will check this information ahead of the next hearing and inform the court accordingly.

---

11:30 | The magistrate picks up on a discrepancy in Sittlington’s lengthy testimony – while he has so far downplayed his involvement in the inquiry as a minor one, he now told the court that he wasn’t just an assistant. The witness elaborates that there were two processes in the inquiry; collating data and then writing up the report.

Sittlington served as one of the experts who assisted in the collection and organisation of data (including through assistance in the process of questioning witnesses) in the first phase and a minor role in the second phase of writing up the report, which is where Harbinson took the lead.

Debono continues picking on the finer points in the disclaimer on the analysis report prepared by the experts. Besides outlining that the report cannot be considered a legal opinion, the disclaimer points out that the analysts would be basing their conclusions on prior experience derived from other cases.

Sittlington is asked to state whether he himself has personal experience of that kind, and he says that he has been investigating these kinds of major, cross-border corruption cases since 1996.

Debono now pivots to the same skewering point deployed by Joseph Muscat’s legal team – the alleged training services contract which the witness discussed with police commissioner Angelo Gafa’.

“Can you confirm that you tried to sell services to the police?”, Debono asked.

“That is partly true, but the way the question is being phrased was totally wrong,” the expert rebutted, pointing out yet again that it was the police commissioner himself who had approached him for a proposal.

The witness further notes that the police commissioner may have been familiar with Sittlington as an expert who had previously trained Malta’s police force in 2001 and had other previous official interactions with the corps.

“I would add, your honour, prior to me coming here on Tuersday night and I was met with an article in the press linked with this issue. This was a confidential deal between me and commissioner Gafa’. It was obviously released to certain individuals and the press, and I am not happy about this,” the witness says.

The defence decides to continue winding up the witness, with Debono asking him to state whether he had proposed that 936,000 euro figure. The witness says that he does not even remember whether a figure was attached with the proposal he had originally made.

---

11:15 | Franco Debono begins cross-examination. He asks the witness about how he learned of the problem with missing documentation. Sittlington says that the inquiring magistrate had reached out to him after it was noted that the documentation was missing, and he confirmed that computer data experts may have failed to upload the entire documentation due to a storage issue.

Debono asks: ‘am I correct in saying that the inquiring magistrate concluded her inquiry without access to this documentation?’

The witness says that the magistrate did have references at hand which noted what was missing from the acts of the inquiry and that all that was missing was the copy of the documents themselves. It took around a month after the conclusion of the inquiry to address the missing documentation gap.

The witness is shown a segment of the report he was involved in compiling on behalf of the inquiring magistrate. He asks about a disclaimer which notes that the report was compiled solely for the benefit of the inquiring magistrate and that it was not meant for public consumption.

The witness notes that the report was compiled by Jeremy Harbinson, the lead analyst on this report. The witness says he assisted with the process but was not ultimately responsible for authoring it, an argument which already cropped up yesterday.

Echoing the tactics used yesterday, the witness is being asked to explain how the analysis was conducted and on what grounds such legal matters are commented upon by the experts in this case. The witness insists that Harbinson is better-placed to answer these questions and that he was not the lead on this investigation.

The magistrate alters the line of questioning slightly to ask the witness to express his opinion about a disclaimer in the report which states that the report must not be considered as legal opinion. Sittlington’s answer does not change, and he says that he does not recognise the specific disclaimer as something he remembers from the final report.

Undeterred, the defence now asks the witness which documents he claims responsibility for, and he answers that he was responsible for all documentation bearing his signature along with the rest of the investigating team.

Sittlington is asked to remember whose testimonies he was present for during the inquiry. He says that, off the top of his head, he does remember disgraced former health minister Chris Fearne as one of the witnesses. Sittlington also asked questions during certain testimonies in his role as an expert assisting the inquiring magistrate.

---

11:00 | Objecting immediately, Franco Debono – obo Alfred Camilleri and DF Advocates – tells the court that, based on the expert’s testimony, there is a “clear, serious breach of the right to disclosure.”

He argues that the experts’ “gross negligence” led to the omission of this additional data and that this should not be acceptable nor should it be a matter which affects his clients’ right to a fair hearing.

The court notes Debono’s objection. Magistrate Leonard Caruana concurs that the law does allow the accused a right to full disclosure and therefore orders the court’s registry to send all additional data to the defence.

Unsatisfied, the defence further requests the court to censure the witness for failing to uphold a high standard and ensure that all the acts of the inquiry were delivered immediately to all parties from day one.

The magistrate remains impassive in the face of this request. Meanwhile, the court expert is still waiting outside.

Sittlington is brought back to the witness stand and is asked to explain (again) how come the acts of the inquiry were incomplete. Sittlington explains this yet again and cross-examination now begins.

---

10:45 | Magistrate Leonard Caruana asks the witness to explain who is responsible for the contents of the USB drives which the witness was asked to bring into the acts of the inquiry.

The witness is yet again patiently explaining to the court that the documents he brought in today are in addition to the original acts and that they had gone missing probably due to a bad file transfer from one drive to the other. Sittlington says that he was personally asked to ensure that these missing files were duly brought to the court’s attention.

After answering the magistrate’s queries, the witness is asked to briefly leave the room yet again while magistrate Caruana listens to final submissions from the defence before making a call. The moment is interrupted as the hall’s audio system is subjected to a quick check due to recording issues.

After audio issues are resolved, the parties briefly discuss how to best proceed with the rest of today’s hearing. Magistrate Leonard Caruana decides that the contents of the hard drives submitted by the court expert is part of the supporting documentation of the original report attached with the inquiry, mirroring the decision taken yesterday by magistrate Rachel Montebello.

---

10:30 | Precious minutes from the court’s time are going to waste as the prosecution and the defence go back and forth about whether the accused have a right to contest the evidence at hand at this stage of the proceedings.

Yesterday, magistrate Rachel Montebello overruled the defence’s objections along these same lines by pointing out that this court’s role is solely to gather evidence.

Nonetheless, Debono is going to great lengths to persuade magistrate Leonard Caruana, referring to the infamous instance in which former Pilatus Bank owner Ali Sadr Hasheminejad was let off the hook by US prosecutors on a technicality related to a lack of disclosure.

In reality, charges against the former owner of the now-shuttered bank had to be withdrawn because the information that was withheld from the defence was deemed classified and all disclosable information was in fact disclosed.

The defence now makes its formal submissions with the court, arguing that the additional documentation that the prosecution wishes to be admit into the acts of the inquiry must be submitted after the prosecution declares whether it forms part of the original acts or not.

The witness is now finally called back in.

Magistrate Leonard Caruana asks the witness to explain who is responsible for the contents of the USB drives which the witness was asked to bring into the acts of the inquiry.

The witness is yet again patiently explaining to the court that the documents he brought in today are in addition to the original acts and that they had gone missing probably due to a bad file transfer from one drive to the other.

Sittlington says that he was personally asked to ensure that these missing files were duly brought to the court’s attention.

---

10:15 | “We are here to defend people’s rights in this majestic hall, this is a very serious situation,” Debono charges at the top of his lungs, earning a rebuke from magistrate Leonard Caruana who pointedly asks why he feels the need to yell at the court when a perfectly functional microphone would do just fine.

The defence is yet again shredding the witness’ credibility before he has barely had any time to speak.

Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco asks the court to clarify whether the additional information being submitted by the court expert was meant to be part of the original acts of the inquiry. She further points out that if all the court experts signed off on the report which was submitted to the inquiry, it must follow that those same experts must sign off on the missing evidence, not just in the name of Sam Sittlington.

---

10:00 | It is pertinent to note that Labour Party president Alex Sciberras – representing Chris Fearne – is among the dozens of lawyers on the defence team representing former high-ranking government officials embroiled in the hospitals concession scandal, which raises questions about how ethical it is for the president of the governing party to represent his former bosses in a major corruption trial.

The defence lawyers in today’s hearing take a leaf out of Joseph Muscat’s playbook to the hearing to protest about the witness’ submission of additional data, as happened during yesterday’s hearing.

The prosecution explains that its sole interest is in ensuring that all essential data is present within the acts of the inquiry, which is why the prosecution immediately sought to bring Sittlington to testify and present all missing information.

Defence lawyers Franco Debono, Stefano Filletti, and Charles Mercieca are taking it in turns to object to the submission of additional information after the inquiry was concluded.

---

09:52 | Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo asks Sittlington to inform the court about his area of expertise and his involvement in the hospitals inquiry.

Much like yesterday, the defence is complaining about the witness’ thick Northern Irish accent. It’s only been a few minutes and it’s already the third time defence lawyer Franco Debono interrupted the witness’ testimony to complain about not being able to understand what is being said.

Sittlington is also asked to explain his role in the inquiry and what specific tasks he was in charge of carrying out while the inquiry was held.

---

09:45 | Good Morning, live from Hall 22 where the compilation of evidence against Chris Fearne and other defendants continues this morning.

Given that today’s hearing begins with yet another testimony of court expert Sam Sittlington, I will avoid repeating details which already emerged during yesterday’s hearing.

Since there are two parallel criminal cases involving multiple defendants, it is inevitable that some testimonies will need to be repeated.

Watch our summary of yesterday’s hearing in NEWZ MILL-QORTI.