The court has formally petitioned the office of the President of Malta to request an extension to the prima facie stage
Vitals Case: Court requests extension to prima facie stage
14:11 | We’re done for today
The case has been adjourned to 27 June, 10.30am. Julian Delia will present a summary of today’s sitting in NEWZ MILL-QORTI later today.
Michael Kaden
13:35 | The next sittings are scheduled for…
Thursday, 27 June, 10.30am (more witnesses)
Tuesday, 2 July, 11am (requests on freezing orders)
Wednesday, 10 July, 9.30am (anything else)
We’re almost done for today. Both defence and prosecution are finalising their requests.
A last minute outburst from the defence, following a submission from prosecutor Spiteri, who argued that the Criminal Code does not provide for instances in which the prosecution must justify the provenance of funds.
Responding immediately, Franco Debono accuses the prosecution of failing to substantiate the multi-million euro freezing orders without testifying on what basis they issued those freezing orders – beyond what the inquiry report concludes. Other defence lawyers back Debono’s accusation.
Everyone wants to go home, however Franco is still at it, out of turn and over the allotted time for the hearing.
The prosecution insists that the way in which the freezing orders were issued is conformant with the dispositions od the law and that the prosecution must only list and indicate the assets which are to be frozen.
If the prosecution presents its evidence at this stage, it puts itself at risk of prejudicing its own case. Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri’s interventions – notably, a young woman – were repeatedly interrupted by defence lawyers speaking out of turn, including in this specific rebuttal.
She emphasises that the defence’s downplaying of the fact that there is a magisterial inquiry report – as if there was no evidence being presented to substantiate the freezing orders – is incredulous, which leads to more murmuring and arguing from the defence’s benches.
In response, Debono argues they must still indicate what exactly they are basing their request for those freezing orders on and that they cannot just point towards the magisterial inquiry and the 78 boxes of evidence as general proof of wrongdoing that justifies each and every freezing order.
Lawyer Stefano Filletti is demanding that reasonable cause for the freezing orders must be established before any decisions are taken.
The prosecution formally declares that all the individuals mentioned by the inquiring magistrate in the conclusions of her procès-verbal must be accused of criminal wrongdoing according to facts established by this same inquiry.
Julian Delia
13:19 | Court requests prima facie stage extension
Magistrate Leonard Caruana says that the court has formally petitioned the office of the President of Malta to request an extension to the prima facie stage and that they are expecting a response by next week.
In the next hearings we’re expecting submissions about whether there is enough evidence for the prima facie stage, the continuation of inspector Scerri’s testimony, and at least two more witnesses – the police officers who were involved in searches, George Frendo and Shaun Spiteri.
Julian Delia
13:00 | 15-minute break
After more than an hour of cross-examination of police inspector Anthony Scerri in the witness stand, the court suggests a 15-minute break.
Franco Debono reminds the magistrate that today’s sitting was supposed to end at 1:30pm, and that the defence intended to file a 21-page note in reply about the freezing order.
Anyway, the sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.
Julian Delia
11:58 | Inspector Scerri doesn’t remember a lot
The prosecution asks the next witness, police inspector Anthony Scerri, to remind the court what his involvement in the inquiry was, which the witness had already described at length during another hearing in the case against Joseph Muscat and others.
Scerri took over after fellow police inspector Rennie Stivala was no longer involved.
After finishing his summary of what his role in the inquiry was, the prosecution asks Scerri whether the police analysed the documents gathered in their searches.
Scerri confirms that no such analysis was carried out and that they stuck closely to the magistrate’s instructions when it came to search parameters. All evidence was sealed and stored according to procedure.
Franco Debono cross-examines: “Do you confirm that a search warrant was issued on 31 August, 2021, DF Consultancy Services Ltd?”
Scerri testifies that magistrate Nadine Lia signed off on the warrant and who that police inspectors George Frendo and Shaun Friggieri carried out the searches. Those are the two inspectors he remembers “for sure”.
Debono: “Do you know that this company was never accused in this inquiry at any point in time?”
Scerri: “I was not involved in that process.”
Debono: “So you’re not in a position to tell us who was responsible for issuing this search warrant?”
No, the inspector says.
Debono asks whether the police had any suspicions of any kind of criminal wrongdoing by DF Consultancy Services Ltd.
Scerri falls back on the police’s strategy by stating that it was solely the magistrate who, in writing or verbally, would request any kind of investigative action such as searches.
Debono: “Do you know which expert accompanied the inspectors when carrying out searches?”
Scerri: “No, I don’t remember.”
Debono: “Was it your decision to delegate to your subordinates on these searches?”
Scerri: “No, it was my superiors’ decision.”
Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco asks whether the police indicated Aron Mifsud Bonnici as a suspect at any point in time. No, the inspector says.
She asks whether Scerri was ordered to carry out any searches? No, he replies. The inspector would only attend for the testimonies whenever it was possible and requested by the inquiring magistrate.
Lawyer Joseph Mizzi, representing Deborah Anne Chappell, asks the witness to state what he was asked to do in relation to Chappell. As far as the witness remembers, Deborah Chappell was not indicated to him as a suspect. Scerri confirms that everyone was summoned to testify as a witness, not as a suspect.
Mizzi asks the inspector to clarify whether Chappell’s rights were read out to her since she was summoned as a witness, not as a suspect.
Scerri says that he does not remember whether rights were read out in every testimony that he was present for.
He does not remember who he asked questions to, including whether he asked questions to Chappell or not. He says he does not remember any relevant details about who was present or not.
The witness insists that his only role in those testimonies was to assist and ask questions whenever it was deemed expedient for the purpose of the testimony.
Asked by the defence to outline how the list of people who were considered of interest to the inquiry was compiled, Scerri says that they would meet the appointed experts regularly to determine the names.
Mizzi: “Do you remember that this search [Deborah Anne Chappell] was carried out in September 2021?”
Scerri: “Yes, I do remember.”
Mizzi: “A month later, you were asked to summon this person as a witness after evidence was gathered, would I be correct in saying that she was a suspect then?”
Scerri: “No, she was never a suspect in the police’s eyes.”
Mizzi: “Why did you gather evidence from someone who is not considered a suspect?”
Scerri: “The orders were clear to find this evidence as requested; no analysis or review of the content; just following magistrate’s instructions.”
Mizzi: “So with all this information at hand and knowing that Chappell [a lawyer herself] had expressed she could not speak about certain issues due to client-lawyer confidentiality, you did not do anything about that?”
Scerri: “I already told you, I don’t remember the details.”
Mizzi: “As a police inspector working in the economic crimes unit, did you not feel any obligation to prevent an illegality from being committed?”
Scerri: “I don’t remember.”
Mizzi is getting angry, yelling at the witness for showing up to court as the only inspector that can be questioned on this issue claiming that he does not remember any of these details.
The defence lawyer manages to convince the court to ask the witness to submit internal police documentation that notes down what had occurred at the time.
Taking over cross-examination from Joseph Mizzi, Stefano Filletti repeats similar questions about Konrad Mizzi and other witnesses and whether they were summoned as witnesses or as suspects, with Scerri responding in the same exact manner.
The inspector is asked about whether he ever accessed the police file he had compiled on this case. He says that he asked for authorisation to be given a copy of this file so he is able to testify accurately in this case and in several others, but was not given access.
Magistrate Leonard Caruana seems to be getting bored as he visibly distracts himself with a text on his phone while the witness’ testimony remains ongoing under questioning from Filletti.
Lawyer Joseph Mizzi formalises an earlier request: He asks the court to give the witness access to the police file cited in his testimony with the purpose of refreshing his memory for the testimony at hand.
The prosecution does not object, since it is not being asked that the police file is exhibited but rather given access to it in the presence of other police officers.
The prosecution and the defence are now bickering about whether the witness should be given access to the police file on Deborah Chappell on site or whether the police file can be brought to court as evidence which the witness can refer to as he is responding to questions.
The magistrate interrupts the back and forth and states that, at this stage, the court is limiting the witness’ consultation of the police file without bringing the file to court.
Julian Delia
11:51 | Defence objects to experts’ appointment again
Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti with yet another intervention: He argues that there are extraneous legal experts interpreting the Maltese Criminal Code in the context of the inquiry and argues that these experts are not well-placed to do so. This is an argument we’ve already heard in the first hearings.
He is making wild assumptions about these experts, arguing that they do not know anything about the laws in the country and that they “usurped” the role of the inquiring magistrate, again making the point that a court should not need to depend on experts to determine whether a crime has been committed or not.
Filletti’s submission, which is backed by all the defence lawyers, notes that they object to the appointment of these experts and that they reserve their right to do so throughout the rest of the proceedings.
The prosecution notes that the appointment of court experts occurred as regulated by law and that therefore, their nomination is valid. The prosecution reserves its right to respond when any objection is made in this regard by the defence at a later stage.
The court, in homage to the principle of equality of arms between the prosecution and every individual accused in these proceedings, accepts the defence’s request to ensure its decree on the nomination of court experts is only issued after every individual accused is given the opportunity to regulate their position.
Julian Delia
11:40 | Court issues exemption from necessity of hard copies
Ruling on a request from the defence, the court formally exempts the legal necessity to provide a printed ‘hard copy’ of the documents of the inquiry due to the massive volume of documentation and allows for soft copy versions only.
Lawyers Stefano Filletti, along with the rest of the defence, reserves his position on the contents of the inquiry due to the fact that the original documents were taken out of the building of the court, thus moving out of the custody of the court registrar, which is where they should be stored.
It was instead given to the office of the Attorney General, who is involved in the case. The defence reserves its position on the admissibility of the procès-verbal and that this point will be raised at the opportune moment.
Prosecutor Francesco Refalo rebuts immediately, saying that at this stage the court is not meant to decide on the admissibility of an inquiry report.
The AG’s lawyer refers to Article 569 (1)(2) of the Criminal Code, which outlines the procedure of how such an inquiry report is typically distributed. The prosecution reserves its right to respond when any position is taken in this regard by the defence at a later stage.
Defence lawyers whose briefs do not overlap into both parallel cases are emphasizing that they are yet to be given access to the contents of the inquiry today.
Julian Delia
11:23 | Inquiry report formally exhibited
The next witness, Franklin Calleja, the court’s Deputy Registrar, formally presents a scanned copy of the inquiry report, including a USB stick with all the documents of the inquiry. The data also includes extracts and references related to the devices which were seized as evidence.
The witness briefly explains how an external expert was appointed in the parallel case presided over by magistrate Rachel Montebello to ensure authenticated copies of the original inquiry report were made, and suggests that this ought to be done to facilitate the process in this case as well.
The defence asks Calleja whether, after the inquiry is sent, there is any other documentation which attests to how this process is handled. The witness says he is not aware of whether this was the case and that the distribution of such documentation would be subject to a formal request.
The external expert cited by the witness was brought in primarily to assist with the process of cloning data from devices.
Calleja is asked whether data from devices from the parallel case [against Joseph Muscat and others] is also included in the acts of this case [against Chris Fearne and others]. The deputy registrar states that he is not aware of the content of these drives.
The witness clarifies that if there is anyone left from the defence who does not have access to the full contents of the inquiry, all they need to do is submit an email address to the deputy registrar’s office.
The court asks the deputy registrar to testify during the next sitting as to whether there were any additional requests for a copy of the inquiry report and whether there was any documentation attesting to how the cloning process was carried out.
Franklin Calleja steps off the stand.
Julian Delia
11:09 | DF Advocates’ application pending
Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri asks witness Deborah Farrugia: “DF Advocates applied to become a legal firm. Am I correct in understanding that this means DF Advocates did not have permission to operate as a legal firm before that date?”
The court raps the prosecutor for asking a question which amounts to a direct submission from the prosecution, and the witness does not answer.
The magistrate asks the witness about how long the vetting process for new legal firms would normally take, and it is confirmed that there is “a long process”. DF Advocates’ application remains pending.
Defence lawyer Franco Debono repeatedly interrupts the prosecution’s cross-examination, accusing Spiteri of “putting words in the witness’ mouth”.
The witness clarifies that there is a provisional list of the firms which have applied for registration and that the lengthy compilation process for this list will be made available online once it is concluded.
Spiteri argues that this means that there is no final, defined list of firms which are actually registered at law. The witness confirms that this is the case.
Magistrate Leonard Caruana asks the witness to clarify whether this provisional list is regulated at law, whether there is a law which describes this temporary list as such and therefore regulates it.
There is a grey area on this list as there seems to be no law, policy, or legal notice to this effect.
The witness argues she is not competent to clarify this and she suggests that the committee for the administration of justice would be better qualified to do so.
Deborah Farrugia steps off the stand.
Julian Delia
10:53 | Did DF Advocates register as law firm?
Deborah Farrugia, secretary for the sub-committee of the Committee for the Administration of Justice, takes the witness stand. She is handed a document and asked by Franco Debono whether she has ever seen it. It is a written request (email) from police inspector Wayne Borg that includes an attachment.
Debono: “Is the email in your possession?”
Farrugia is uncertain and asked to check her phone to see if the email is in her possession.
The email was sent on 30 May. The police inspector’s written request is about the list of representatives associated with DF Advocates who are registered with the committee.
The witness provides the documentation as requested. Franco Debono asks whether this information is confidential.
Farrugia replies that all lawyers must be registered with the commission and that the process did not require any specific further authorisation in this case. The information was supplied to them by DF Advocates.
Debono insists on specifying that this was merely an application to be registered and not a confirmation of the registration.
Debono wants the witness to clarify whether the application information is strictly confidential or whether there was further authorisation required before providing the information to the police.
Farrugia says that it was the main committee from which she requested authorisation from, while she is secretary for the sub-committee.
She says she is not aware whether the information is confidential or not and she insists that it is not her competence to establish whether it is confidential or not.
Julian Delia
10:41 | Good Morning
We’re back in Hall 22. Magistrate Leonard Caruana is back in the court room. Aron Mifsud Bonnici will be testifying via video link as he claims he is unwell. His lawyer Charles Mercieca presents a medical certificate which attests to this.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
