LIVE: Compilation of evidence against Fearne & Co

10:15 | Uuuhm, OK, apparently we’re done for the day. The next hearings in the case against Fearne & Co will be held on 15 November and 22 November, both from 09:30.

---

10:10 | The prosecution notes that Sam Sittlington was meant to be cross-examined today but is reportedly ill and therefore unavailable. The defence immediately asks for evidence of Sittlington’s COVID diagnosis, which seems to be the stated reason for his absence.

While the prosecution suggests the possibility of video-conferencing today’s testimony, the defence insists that he should be present for questioning. The court notes the witness’ absence and that he is to present evidence to substantiate it accordingly, reserving the right to take necessary steps should that fail to materialise.

---

10:00 | Franco Debono rails at the defence for not being immediately able to identify Chris Sittlington, with fellow defence lawyer Stefano Filletti further arguing that their reluctance to do so challenges the credibility of their case against the accused since it rests entirely on the findings of the inquiring magistrate.

Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo stands up and accuses the defence of “hijacking” the prosecution’s turn to present evidence, leading to a furious response from the defence. Magistrate Leonard Caruana immediately threatens both parties with contempt of court charges, which leads to a slight lowering of tempers for a few seconds.

Judging from the defence’s insistence about Chris Sittlington, it seems likely that this anomaly is going to take up a significant portion of today’s proceedings, in spite of the magistrate’s efforts to resolve this matter. Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo insists that, like in all other cases, the order in which evidence is submitted and exhibited during this case is entirely up to the prosecution.

As the magistrate attempts to move on, defence lawyer Giannella De Marco seems to have more to add, insisting on the prosecution’s need to address this anomaly.

The defence is now accusing the prosecution of resisting its attempts at identifying the individual in question. Magistrate Leonard Caruana formally notes the defence’s request.

“Though the court understands that it must be established whether this expert is someone who effectively played a role in the inquiry and if so, what role, or whether this is merely an oversight, it must also consider that these procedures at this stage, as regulated by the Criminal Code, and that the presentation of witnesses is exclusively at the discretion of the attorney general. Therefore, it cannot order the summons of this expert at this stage,” the magistrate remarks.

“The court further notes that nothing is stopping the defence from using available procedure, as contemplated by the Criminal Code, to call upon witness at this stage,” Caruana adds.

The court urges the prosecution to do whatever it can do to eliminate doubts about the existence of Chris Sittlington and clarify the matter accordingly.

---

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

Franco Debono makes the first point of the day: a bizarre anomaly in the inquiry report refers to an individual expert named Chris Sittlington.

It is unclear whether this is a mistaken reference to Sam Sittlington (an expert who was already identified and who testified) or whether it is a separate individual who happens to share the same surname.

The prosecution is to check on this detail and report back to the court about its findings.

Magistrate Leonard Caruana suggests that the prosecution must first identify whether the reference to Christopher Sittlington is a typo or whether it is a reference to an individual who is yet to testify.

The defence formally submits its request to the court and it will be decided at a later stage.

The prosecution briefly rebuts that if the defence wishes to ask an individual (in this case, Chris Sittlington) to testify, it may follow standard procedures to do so.

Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti retorts that the prosecution is obliged to present all evidence in favour of against the accused.

Based on the acts of the inquiry submitted in the case by the prosecution, it results that Sittlington was confirmed as an expert according to the standard procedure of such appointments.

Filletti adds that if Sam Sittlington was asked to testify about the shortcomings he was accused of being responsible for – namely, the ‘missing’ documentation which took up so many cross-examination hours last week – then this must also be applied to the unknown Chris Sittlington, described as a “phantom” by the defence given that there are no further references to what he did and how he did it.