Magistrate Leonard Caruana has rejected the defence lawyer’s demand to recuse himself from the Vitals proceedings
Magistrate in Vitals case rejects defence’s request for his recusal
15:30 | Thanks for following
The next sitting is scheduled for Friday, 21 June, 10am, and the court suggests that on Friday the procès-verbal will be exhibited. The sitting has been adjourned.
15:24 | Running out of time
Turning to address the 3pm deadline, magistrate Leonard Caruana attempts to conclude the sitting. Franco Debono insists on the defence’s right to access the inquiry’s contents before freezing orders are confirmed for the accused.
The prosecution repeats requests made at the beginning of the case featuring disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat regarding public statements, as well as asking to ensure that all defendants are notified that they must inform the court before traveling abroad to ensure the case continues.
Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell asks the court to consider extending the amount of time given to all parties to review the facts of the case to date. Franco Debono concurs, and the court assures them that this will be taken into consideration.
Julian Delia
15:15 | Superintendent Rennie Stivala
Police Superintendent Rennie Stivala is asked to testify about his role in the inquiry.
He says that he was involved from around October 2019, when assistant police commissioner Ian Abdilla appointed him to assist the inquiring magistrate.
Stivala explains that their role as officers was to assist the inquiring magistrate in the process of summoning witnesses and any other instances of evidence gathering.
He was also involved in the raids carried out at Technoline and Gateway Solutions, the residences of Technoline’s directors, and the office of David Meli, among others.
These raids led to the seizure of relevant documentation and all electronic devices which were deemed relevant to the investigation, the witness says.
He adds that he was working on the inquiry up until April 2021 and briefly recalled carrying out raids on multiple properties which were being used by Nexia BT.
The prosecution asks the witness to further explain what happened with the documentation and devices that were seized in these raids.
Stivala states that the evidence in question would be immediately logged in and handed in to the inquiring magistrate at the earliest possible availability.
After the police present documentation and devices to the inquiring magistrate, the police no longer have any visibility on the evidence itself, with the witness emphasising that the investigation is then led by the inquiring magistrate.
Under further questioning, the witness confirms that the police did not investigate in parallel. He clarifies that there was a file open on the case but that there was no active investigation.
He confirms that up until April 2021, this is how the situation was – the police were solely assisting in the inquiring magistrate’s investigation.
The witness refuses to confirm specific questions about how particular witnesses were served with a notification from the court as he is not in a position to recall facts which he was not entirely aware of at the time, due to his limited visibility on the investigation itself.
Stivala confirms that police officers were present during the questioning by the inquiring magistrate but that the investigation was largely carried out by the magistrate herself.
Prodded by the defence, the witness clarified he was the only police officer present during the witnesses’ depositions to the inquiring magistrate.
“During the questioning of the witness, my presence was not necessary, but I would remain in the courtroom”, the witness explains when cross-examined by Franco Debono.
Giannella de Marco asks the witness whether court experts were present during these testimonies.
The witness states that he does not recall whether there were court experts present in the hearings he was assisting with. He confirms that those experts aided with some of the searches but not during the testimonies, as far as he could recall.
De Marco: “When carrying out these searches, who gave you orders about where to carry out the raids?”
Stivala: “The magistrate”
De Marco: “Who told you what to look for?”
Stivala: “In the beginning (the Gateway and Technoline raids), it was the magistrate who identified what to look for.”
The witness further confirms that whenever an expert observed a specific bit of evidence or suggested methods of searching through the evidence at hand – which keywords to look for in a specific document or trove of emails, for example – the magistrate always had the final say.
Stivala emphasized that the magistrate always gave her go ahead before any kind of investigative action was authorised.
De Marco: “Aron Mifsud Bonnici [her client] was not asked to testify as a witness or suspect, right?”
Stivala: “‘Not as far as I know, no.”
Generally, the witness is shaky about the details of each individual raid, which raises questions about why exactly he is being repeatedly asked to divulge details which he is not in a position to recall, as the defence lawyers are sitting up one after the other to ask similar questions about their own individual clients.
Julian Delia
14:37 | Court Registrar Franklin Calleja
Registrar of Criminal Courts and Tribunals, Franklin Calleja, takes the witness stand and testifies that the attorney general received a copy of the inquiry by 25 April.
He says the court administration is currently scanning the 78 volumes of the related inquiry into Joseph Muscat and others. The inquiry is voluminous, he says.
Lawyer Debono says he what he is interested in is that today the registrar does not have a copy of the inquiry to provide the defence with, which Calleja confirms this is the case, adding the copies should be ready by later today.
Asked by lawyer Franco Galea who had provided the registrar with the copy of the procès-verbal and whether it was the Attorney General, Calleja replies in the negative.
Asked whether the Attorney General already had a copy of the procès-verbal, Calleja replies that the public prosecutor has had a copy since April.
The first time he had contact with it was in April when he passed it on to the AG, the witness says, and he had received it from the inquiring magistrate on 25 April, “the same day we sent it to the AG”, Calleja said.
Asked by Lawyer Filletti whether the witness had any control or oversight of the evidence while it was in the AG’s possession, the registrar replied that after the acts were deposited at the AG’s office, they were signed for and his responsibility for them ceased.
Replying to Franco Debono, the witness confirms that the inquiry and the devices seized are stored in a dedicated room in the Court building.
Filletti points out that in this case, the original procès-verbal had been sent, although law states that “the magistrate shall order that a copy of the same procès-verbal shall be transmitted by the registrar to the Commissioner of Police”.
Registrar Calleja replies that “in every case, the original is passed on to the AG”, emphasizing that “this happens with every inquiry”.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
14:19 | First witness
The first witness takes the stand – Joseph Caruana, the Commissioner for Tax and Customs.
Caruana explains how the police commissioner asked his office for authorization to press charges against Kenneth Deguara and Deborah Chappell, which was given.
Lawyer Roberto Montalto cross-examines the witness: Caruana points out that the authorization is a formality required by the law, that the police did not divulge details on Chappel, and that it is the police who do criminal investigations”.
Pressed by Montalto about what documents Chappell had allegedly falsified, and whether in his eyes she was innocent, Caruana says that it is up to the police to investigate further.
Lawyer Ezekiel Psaila asks the witness if there would have been nothing in his eyes which was illegal, had it not been for the police commissioner’s request, which Caruana confirmed, saying “at this point, yes, there was nothing illegal”.
Lawyer Franco Debono is specifically asking the witness about when the decision was taken and when the tax commissioner signed off on it. Caruana is told to step off and call the office and check.
Caruana returns to the court with the information requested and says that the police commissioner made the request on 2 May 2024.
Lawyer Stephano Filletti asks the witness whether it was an authorisation to investigate and/or to prosecute.
Caruana reiterates that any criminal investigation is undertaken by the police, and that any investigation by the department it is suspended until the criminal proceedings are concluded.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
13:54 | Sitting resumes
Some 20 minutes ago, Peter Fenech, the President of the Chamber of Advocates, walked in and called all the lawyers to follow him outside.
The lawyers return to their places, and we’re back in session as the magistrate enters the courtroom and resumes the sitting with three knocks.
Magistrate Leonard Caruana states in his decree on the request for his recusal that the magistrate’s alleged bias must be founded in fact and not just on the accused’s perception that the court is biased against them.
Noting that the defence’s request for his recusal does not have any basis at law, the magistrate rejected the defence’s request.
Julian Delia
11:51 | Sitting suspended
The magistrate appears to be unimpressed by the lawyers’ argument and suspends the sitting until 1.30pm.
10:44 | Prosecution rejects lawyers’ argument
The prosecution objects to the defence lawyers’ argument. Legally, there is no reason why the magistrate should recuse themselves as the law is clear on what grounds a magistrate may recuse themselves.
Furthermore, the prosecution argues that had the defence not misguided the court during the first hearing, in which DF Advocates’ court notification was challenged at the eleventh hour, these issues would not have persisted to this day.
It notes that no evidence was presented in the case to substantiate the claim that the prosecution is being favoured by the court’s decrees in today’s hearing.
The decision to accuse all 16 individuals at once is totally irrelevant to the request for the magistrate’s recusal, the prosecution argues, adding that this is entirely the prerogative of the attorney general.
The court cannot recuse itself just because the decrees which were issued so far are not to the defence’s satisfaction, the prosecution said.
Debono insists on his point about the difficulty of representing all 16 individuals in one case, repeating his claim that this will cause logistical and legal issues for the fair representation of each of the accused, emphasizing what he believes is a “tremendous, irremediable prejudice of the case”.
Lawyer De Marco says that on 10 June 2024 the Attorney General made a request and argued that the Court had committed two mistakes. Then there was a decree on 14 June. The lawyer argues that the accused are at a disadvantage.
Julian Delia
11:32 | 16 simultaneously accused ‘not on’
16 people accused at the same time is not on, says lawyer Franco Debono, adding that this was something which was the prosecution’s decision all the way.
He takes aim at the prosecution’s office, arguing that their decision to charge 16 people at once potentially jeopardises each and every individual’s right to be represented individually.
He says this gave the impression that all accused are being lumped into the same basket and that individuals are not being given the right to make multiple submissions and that individual legal submissions are being overruled to avoid repetition.
So far, no witnesses have been heard, as the defence continues to pick on procedural points.
Julian Delia
11:25 | Defence requests magistrate’s recusal
The defence submits a request for magistrate Leonard Caruana’s recusal.
All the defence lawyers argue that due to the way court proceedings were carried out today, especially referring to the way in which the request related to DF Advocates was handled, the decrees issued by the court favoured the Attorney General’s case.
The defence expressed that the court is not being homogenous in its approach to the accused in this courtroom when compared to other cases which were cited.
Furthermore, the defence feels that it has been prejudiced by the court’s proceedings since all evidence which has been submitted against the accused has not been disclosed adequately.
Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell adds that the court was prejudicing the defence because 19 days have expired while the defence was under the impression that the compilation of evidence was supposed to begin today. This created ‘an element of surprise’ which put the defence ‘in an impossible position’.
Julian Delia
11:20 | Court doubles down
Since the last part of the examination process was concluded today, magistrate Leonard Caruana states that these submissions do not change anything from the fact that the compilation began when the charges were read out on oath, which in this case was on 29 May, 2024. The court therefore refuses the defence’s request, doubling down on its decree.
Julian Delia
11:09 | Mercieca insists
Charles Mercieca insists on his argument, outlining the facts of the case he cited as precedent and further arguing that the charges in that case were read out to the accused on oath.
Therefore, the lawyer argues, the court’s decree today is erroneous, and asks the court to consider the revocation of the decree which it just issued since it was based on an incorrect premise.
Defence lawyers Roberto Montalto and Ezekiel Psaila take the floor. Montalto says an analogy should be made on when the jury begins. Psaila argues that they will have less time to contest the prima facie decree.
Prosecutor Francesco Refalo refers to the Criminal Code and objects to the issue raised by the defence, as the prosecution stands by the court’s decree on this matter.
Julian Delia
11:03 | Sitting resumes
We’re back in session.
The court reviewed the case referred to by lawyer Charles Mercieca and considers that the circumstances in the case cited as precedent were different than the circumstances of the case being heard today.
Therefore, the defence’s request is being rejected.
Julian Delia
10:30 | Sitting suspended
The hearing will be suspended for some 20 minutes while the court is obtaining a copy of the 2004 decree cited by Charles Mercieca and deliberating on the defence’s request.
Michael Kaden
10:24 | When did the case actually start?
Franco Debono is back in the courtroom.
Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti notes that 19 days have passed from the date in which the first hearing was held, which means there are less than 12 days to close the prima facie stage.
He says that up until today, the defence has not yet been given any access to the inquiry’s contents except for the conclusions of the inquiring magistrate.
It is well known that both the attorney general and the police all have more information at hand than what the defence has, Filletti adds.
The defence argues that it will be impossible for them to review all evidence available over the next couple of weeks, even if all information is given to the defence today.
Debono adds that all the issues this case was currently facing were because of the prosecution’s errors when filing court notifications and the relevant charges.
Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco asks the court to clarify on which date the case is considered to have ‘started’, since the first hearing was annulled, as she seeks clarification on the time limits for the prima facie decree.
Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca refers to a decree issued by the court in the case Police vs Anthony Fountain (30 May, 2004) stating that the prima facie stage is counted from the day that the initial proceedings (initial examination of the accused) are completed.
He argues that the prima facie count shouldn’t have started yet since the initial proceedings are not yet complete.
Julian Delia
10:07 | Debono leaves the courtroom
The lawyers are contesting the exhibition of documents, with Franco Debono shouting “We first must know where the documents were obtained from. If we aren’t told, we will demand an investigation. I will make this clear”.
Debono insists that these document were filed in an anomalous manner and that the defence makes the “simple request” to have the person who filed it testify.
The prosecution objects to the request, since these documents – for example the accused’s identifying documents – are never presented by representatives of an entity but are confirmed by those representatives if necessary at an ulterior stage of the proceedings.
After being told by the magistrate that this would be dealt with at a later stage, Debono stands up and storms out of the courtroom.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
09:47 | DF Advocates ‘duly notified’
Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri from the Attorney General’s office observes, referring to a decree handed down on 14 June, that all the accused were in fact notified in a timely fashion about the charges in their regard.
The prosecution considers DF Advocates to have been duly notified, as they were all present in the hall during proceedings, including today. The court says that the decree handed down on Friday is still in force.
As Spiteri hands over copies of documents, including the birth certificates of the individuals and a letter from the tax commissioner, lawyer Franco Debono asks where the prosecution got that document from and since when documents were exhibited without authorisation.
Julian Delia
09:42 | The DF saga goes on
A copy of the court’s decree is distributed among the parties, after the court asked the accused and their defence lawyers if they are aware of the decrees handed down by it on 14 July.
Magistrate Leonard Caruana, while taking attendance of the accused and their respective legal teams, arrives at DF Advocates to which lawyer Franco Debono protests.
He argues that the decree says if he and Jonathan Thompson stated that they are representing DF Advocates, then the firm is notified, and if they did not say so, it is not represented.
Debono says that they are only present to contest the existence of the court notification in their regard and this must not be interpreted as an instance in which DF Advocates was formally notified of this proceedings.
The court proceeds with the examination of Jean Carl Farrugia and Kenneth Deguara as representatives of DF advocates.
Julian Delia
09:32 | Good Morning
Bonġu! Julian Delia (The Critical Angle project) reports live from Court hall 22, while Michael Kaden (NEWZ.mt) produces this live blog.
The first hearing on 30 May, when Fearne, Scicluna, and 13 other defendants faced charges of fraud, misappropriation, and fraudulent gain among others, was annulled.
Defence lawyers successfully argued that DF Advocates, one of the law firms accused of enabling the fraud surrounding the deal, was not adequately notified of the court proceedings.
The second hearing on 10 June also ran into procedural issues as the prosecution failed to notify the magistrate of its intent to appeal the decree about DF Advocates’ court notification.
Given that the magistrate did not have time to adequately deliberate on the request, the hearing was postponed again to today.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
