Good Morning from Hall 22
LIVE: Compilation of evidence against Muscat & Co
We need your support!
Reporting about this case has become a full-time job for us on certain days. We are not getting paid for delivering this public service, but greatly appreciate your donation to NEWZ.mt using our Revolut payment page.
Please leave a reference to ‘Court Blog’, so we’re able to allocate the amount received to this project.
14:38 | We’re done for today. The next sitting will be held on 10 October, 10:00. Thanks for following our live blog. Julian Delia will summarise today’s court hearing later today in NEWZ MILL-QORTI.
14:34 | Lawyer Shazoo Ghaznavi is up next in the cross-examination, asking why there was a miscommunication related to the uploading of the case’s evidence, and he says it may have been a technical glitch in the process.
The defence asks the witness about the way the data was seized and processed, and the witness reiterates the procedure which was used throughout the whole inquiry.
14:28 | The expert is also asked to talk about overlapping data points between different inquiries he is concurrently involved in, and he confirms that there was such ‘overlapping’ data.
He is asked to explain whether he flagged this to the inquiring magistrate since the witness previously stated that such evidence might be useful for other inquiries.
It is difficult to determine what the extent of this overlap is given that the expert is not legally allowed to speak about the details obtained from other inquiries.
The witness confirms that, despite the overlap, there would not have been any instances in which data obtained from other inquiries was used in this one.
Tonna Lowell suggests that there are such similar – “if not identical” – data points between the inquiries and asks the witness to state what he has to say about that, and the witness says that in the case of repeat data which would need to be lifted from another inquiry, a specific court application would need to be filed.
14:18 | The witness confirms that all the relevant documentation provided by Spiteri was transmitted into the acts of the inquiry in its entirety and that he assumes that whatever was irrelevant was returned to the original owner as per procedure.
The witness is asked whether he was aware that there was material in Spiteri’s possession which may have been confidential at law, and he says he is not sure.
The witness confirms that it was up to the inquiring magistrate to determine whether Spiteri should have been treated as a witness or as a suspect, and that all final decisions – including in relation to searches – were made by the inquiring magistrate.
The witness briefly explains how the physical act of seizing data was carried out either by the experts themselves or the police officers who were tasked with doing so by the inquiring magistrate.
He says that it was largely handled by the police and that whenever the experts themselves identified something of interest, the police were duly informed.
The defence asks the witness more questions about the chain of command when it came to determining who to search and where. The process described by the witness seems like it was a fluid one – while the final call always rested with the magistrate, the team of experts conducting the searches were also assessing the relevance of potential evidence and constantly discussing internally (with the inquiring magistrate and the police) what else would be required according to the investigation’s needs.
14:10 | Jason Grima takes over cross-examination. The defence asks the witness about the proposal he had discussed with police commissioner Angelo Gafa’ and whether there were any other proposals discussed with the police commissioner.
Sittlington says that there were no such discussions and also denies that he had plans to set up commercial operations in Malta.
The witness confirms that no searches at PwC were carried out, in spite of the fact that they were involved in the concession in the early stages since VGH were their clients (MoU, drafting bids etc…).
Sittlington is reminded that he is listed as a former advisor for PwC and is asked whether he had submitted this information to the inquiring magistrate, and he says that he didn’t because he thought it was irrelevant (since his involvement as an advisor with PwC dates back to 2008).
Grima asks about Sittlington’s attendance for at least two hearings in which Christopher Spiteri was being interviewed. The witness is asked whether Spiteri was considered a suspect at the time.
The witness says that there was documentation which suggested that he should be treated as a witness at that stage, and that he collaborated with the inquiring magistrate when it was requested.
13:50 | The sitting is suspended until 2pm.
13:35 | The witness says he cannot remember whether he was present for the searches carried out at Malta Enterprise’s offices.
The witness says he cannot recall whether he had specifically analysed the documentation obtained from Malta Enterprise’s offices, only that such documentation would have certainly been analysed by someone from his team.
The defence is now asking highly specific questions related to Malta Enterprise and Taomac Ltd, threads from the Cyclotron saga which the witness hardly seems to have any visibility over.
Dalli asks about a note in the experts’ report about the suspicious timing in the change of the shareholding structure (MTrace Ltd) of the company which was allegedly used to siphon funds out of the Cyclotron project.
Asked to explain about why the timing of the transactions was deemed suspicious, the witness says he cannot recall any additional details about this process beyond what the report itself states.
Dalli seems to be barking up the wrong tree here – practically every response from the witness indicates he does not recall the specifics she is asking about.
In fact, the witness suggests that Jeremy Harbinson and his other colleagues on the team would be better placed to answer certain specific questions such as the ones raised by defence lawyer Veronique Dalli.
Dalli: “Were there other suspects in this inquiry who were indicated as suspects to be charged without any prior questioning?” (as she claims happened in the case of Musarella and Taomac Ltd, her clients)
The witness says he is not aware of whether there were any reasons why this was the case and that he does not recall having expressed any opinion to that effect.
The defence continues asking about specifics which the witness is not well-placed to answer, so we will not report any further updates about this line of questioning unless something changes about the defence’s tack.
13:22 | Scraping the bottom of the barrel, the defence is now asking the witness to define what money laundering crimes are and what the experts were actually looking for.
As the witness spends a few minutes explaining – looking to the magistrate with slight incredulity every now and then – what they would be looking for in such an exercise, pointing out that basic material such as personal correspondence, banking transactions, and other types of communication would be essential to outlining the nature of the relationships between suspected criminals seeking to conceal their illegal activity
Veronique Dalli, Shazoo Ghaznavi, and Stephen Tonna Lowell are up next for questioning. The court warns them repeatedly to avoid asking the same questions again. Dalli is now taking over questioning.
Dalli asks the witness to clarify an earlier remark about how Milenovic was a ‘common relation’ (acquaintance) of the inquiring magistrate, and he confirms that she had first personally introduced him to the inquiring magistrate.
He also confirms he was not present for all the sittings held in connection with this inquiry and that the magistrate would give them a list of witnesses per session and that attendance from the experts’ end was at the magistrate’s discretion.
The witness is asked about whether he is familiar with the process of how Maltese government entities are run, referring to Malta Enterprise as one example. The witness says “not really.” Under further questioning, the witness says he was not present when Josie Muscat had testified in front of the inquiring magistrate. The witness does not seem particularly familiar with Muscat’s position and/or any alleged involvement in this deal.
The witness is unable to recall any further details about Muscat and his involvement with the Cyclotron deal.
13:14 | The defence asks the witness whether there was any particular reason why he was selected as the liaison point in relation to the inquiry, and he says that “it could have been anyone”.
The witness is asked whether the magistrate was informed about the data which he believed was not meant to be included, and the witness says the data that was presented to the magistrate was the data included in the final report and that’s it.
The witness is asked about the firm’s relationship with the police, and h says that he believes it was a good working relationship and that the police assisted with whatever request experts had in relation to searches and sittings.
The witness is asked whether there was any additional correspondence between himself and the police which was unrelated to this inquiry, and he says this was not the case.
The prosecution points out that this line of questioning – yet again – has nothing to do with his integrity and/or impartiality.
13:06 | The expert clarifies that the keywords which formed the parameters of their searches were listed according to conversations held within the team of forensic analysts and experts which were brought together under the inquiring magistrate’s umbrella for the purpose of her investigation into the deal.
After some prevarication from the defence, the court explicitly asks the witness whether there was a deliberate attempt by his team to craft a political narrative which dictated these search parameters, and the witness says that that was absolutely not the case.
The expert is now asked again – for the last time, the court warns – about why his signature was on the report if he does not describe himself as the author responsible for it.
The court asks the witness to state whether he was one of the persons involved in determining the search parameters, and he explains yet again that this was a collective effort.
12:55 | The court seems exhausted by the defence’s nitpicking, which has now turned its attention towards the final report itself and the fact that he signed off on it.
The defence is recycling its previous argument on this point, so we will not bore you with more repetition unless necessary.
The witness is now asked about what happened with data which was deemed irrelevant to the inquiry, and he says that it was given back to the original owner it was seized from after it was analysed.
12:51 | After a full theatrical performance from Muscat’s lawyer Vince Galea, questioning is taken over by Stefano Filletti, who asks the witness about whether he knows of how he and the other court experts were appointed.
The witness says that experts present their credentials when they are first appointed for an inquiry, with no ‘updates’ to these credentials being affected afterwards.
He says he is not aware of how the internal process worked and that he was only aware of the process insofar as he was involved.
12:45 | The defence is now quoting a private LinkedIn exchange from ten months ago, between the witness and an individual whose identity is not yet clear – word for word what the expert said in a private conversation.
Sittlington was commenting on what he felt about the development of the political crisis in Malta and the generally corrupt environment in Malta.
The defence seems to be implying that the witness was talking about his involvement in the inquiry in an unauthorised manner, a notion which the witness contests.
But the real question is this: how does the defence have access to all this information which should have been confidential in its very nature? Is this a concerted effort to destabilise the witness’ work as a court expert?
12:40 | Sittlington is asked whether any journalists ever attempted to contact him, and he says one journalist contacted him about whether he had any comments to make about the inquiry and the case in Guyana.
The witness does not remember the name of the journalist in question, though he says that he does remember contact being established through LinkedIn.
12:31 | The witness is now asked about whether he had ever given a formal presentation about inquiries in Malta and/or Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination, which he said was not true.
The only statement he had made related to inquiries was in the context of pointing out that he cannot talk about inquiries and their outcomes and that no confidential inquiry information had ever been mentioned in public seminars he was involved in.
The defence now asks about whether the witness’ professional background clashes with his participation in the movie industry. The prosecution asks the defence what the relevance of this question is, but is overruled. The witness says that he is not an actor and that he was solely involved in a few roles as an extra.
The witness clarifies that he had not done any acting work while his work on the inquiry was ongoing.
The defence now asks whether Sittlington was ever in contact with Repubblika or anyone involved in the organisation. The prosecution insists that this question has no relevance.
Sittlington says he does not recognise the name of the organisation and that he does not recall having any contact with anyone in the group. He does not recognise them at all.
Same question but about unnamed individuals involved in politics – the magistrate yet again asks the defence to narrow down its line of questioning, and the prosecution stands up once more to protest against the defence’s ludicrous attempt at cornering him.
He is now asked whether he has ever had contact with members of the opposition, and he says he is completely unfamiliar.
12:25 | The witness is asked to exhibit email exchanges which are related to this proposal, and he confirms this will be done.
The defence now attempts to craft an explosive claim – it asks the witness to confirm whether he asked for information to be extracted about certain individuals after he received confirmation that the proposal was not accepted.
The court tells the defence to be explicit about what it is implying, which seems to be that the expert only sought to chase the accused after his proposal was refused.
‘Certain individuals’ – the witness is asked who those individuals were and what information was asked to be extracted. The court insists on direct questioning.
Muscat’s lawyer asks the witness to confirm whether he asked for material information about some of the accused, without naming who he is referring to.
The court interjects and insists the defence must be explicit.
“Was the name of Alfred Camilleri mentioned at anytime?”
“I remember the name Alfred Camilleri, I saw that name mentioned in an article yesterday night…”
The magistrate explicitly asks whether the witness asked for information about Camilleri to be extracted.
“I don’t recall.”
12:16 | The defence now asks the witness whether he informed the inquiring magistrate about the proposal he had tabled to Gafa’, and he says that he had not.
The witness says that the proposed contract in question was his idea after discussions with the commissioner. The proposal in question centred Gafa’s ideas to provide updated training to new recruits and investigators within the FCID.
The expert was approached by the police’s leadership, and he drafted the proposed contract.
He says he does not remember the estimated value of the proposal, and the defence – again, without explaining how it got the information – specifically pointing out an asking price of 936,000 euros.
The witness says that there was no exact value because the police’s top brass had stated that they were waiting for EU funding before proceeding with the contract. The proposal is set to be submitted as evidence in this case.
He states he is concerned about confidential information related to discussions between himself and the police commissioner has been clearly leaked to the defence and is being used against him. This information was discussed solely with police commissioner Angelo Gafa’ and deputy police commissioner Alexandra Mamo.
The court notes the witness’ concern before the defence proceeds with questioning about this proposal. The witness says that the proposal was withdrawn shortly after it was submitted and no response was received by the witness.
12:09 | The witness is asked whether he thinks that to be qualified as an expert in the field of forensic analysis, one must have ACCA qualifications.
This question is based on a statement to that effect that the witness had previously made and whether he agrees that statement is still true, and the witness confirms this is still the case.
The defence is now reading out the guidelines set out by Maltese courts in relation to court experts and their conduct.
“Do you confirm that while you were engaged as an independent expert by the inquiring magistrate, you sent a proposal to provide services to the Maltese police?” the defence asks, with the prosecution leaping to intervene and asking the defence to explain where it sourced this information from. The defence does not elaborate.
The witness says that police commissioner Angelo Gafa’ had specifically requested a quote for these services, and that he had provided it accordingly.
12:00 | Galea briefly notes that the witness’s profile says he was an advisor to the UK government and PWC. The magistrate urges Galea to continue and arrive at the point in which the witness’ relevance to the inquiry is brought back in focus.
Galea now attempts to ask about an international conference which had rejected Sittlington as an expert speaker due to adverse media reports which emerged from Guyana.
The magistrate initially declares the line of questioning irrelevant before allowing it to be made in a specific manner.
The witness confirms that the conference in question had in fact confirmed that he was not deemed fit to attend.
The defence asks the witness to state on what grounds he thought he was fit to be involved in an inquiry if he was not even deemed fit for a conference and whether he informed the inquiring magistrate of this previous incident.
The witness says he does not believe that not notifying the magistrate of what occurred in Guyana was not a breach of his obligations, somewhat dismissing the defence’s questions as irrelevant.
11:52 | Incredulously, Galea – who is serving as lawyer to disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat – is quoting media reports about the witness’ conduct in Guyana and cherry-picking quotes he had given to journalists at the time.
The lawyer insists that Sittlington must answer further as to why he had domiciled his company’s address at the premises of the head of the organised crime unit in Guyana. It is honestly fascinating to hear the lawyer of a corrupt former prime minister talk about the importance of journalists’ questions in relation to corruption.
The defence now decides to pick on the witness’ LinkedIn profile, pointing out that his profile lists additional work in the field of acting.
The prosecution asks the defence about the relevance of Vince Galea’s line of questioning, questioning the relevance of questioning a court expert about his acting career.
The court considers that the witness’ LinkedIn profile is relevant insofar as it refers to his expertise and qualifications.
11:44 | The defence continues referring to its supporting documentation, shuffling through its notes and cherry-picking quotes as it sees fit.
After a few minutes, Galea refers Sittlington to a news article about the Guyana case. The defence asks whether Sittlington took legal action against the UK government, and he states that he did not take any legal action beyond the case he filed against his former Belfast-based employer.
Galea confronts the witness about reports which claimed that Sittlington used the address of the head of the special organised crime in Guyana as his own in a fraudulent manner.
The witness says that this report was totally untrue because his bank account in Guyana is registered to that same address. He says that the office of the head of the unit was actually helpful and that they had assisted him in setting up private commercial interests in the country.
The witness further claims that the head of the unit himself was under investigation and that political undercurrents within the country, along with significant corruption in the country across the highest echelons of government, meant his work had become far more complicated.
He claims the government had orchestrated trumped up accusations against him because of a report he had filed about the misconduct of law enforcement official.
11:38 | Sam Sittlington now briefly elaborates about his past involvement in similar assignments in other countries, including Guyana (the same country in which he was accused of abusing his position).
The prosecution interjects with the defence’s transparent attempt at circumventing the court’s previous refusal to accept any questioning about the witness’ track record, the court notes the objection but allows this specific question to pass through.
Galea asks the witness to clarify whether he was dismissed by the UK government on the Guyana assignment, and the witness says this was incorrect since a subcontractor had revoked his role.
The court orders that the supporting documentation provided by the defence (evidence which suggests that the expert’s misconduct in Guyana was reattempted by the witness in relation to his work in Malta) and that the witness is to be confronted with this evidence.
Referring to this supporting documentation submitted by the defence, Galea asks the witness about how his contract was rescinded by the subcontracting company he worked for in Belfast.
The British High Commisison had stated that in light of information about Sittlington’s private business interests, his contract in Guyana was terminated accordingly.
The defence confronts him with this conflicting piece of evidence and asks him to clarify whether he was in fact terminated or rescinded.
“The contract was not terminated by the British High Commission, it was rescinded by the subcontractor,” the witness insists, further pointing out that he sued the company for breach of contract and that he was awarded substantial compensation as a result.
11:26 | The witness is called back in for the fourth time.
Defence lawyer Vince Galea continues to attempt to put words into the witness’ mouth by asking him whether he is confirming that he assumes no responsibility for the document.
The witness disregards this as untrue, repeating the essence of what he’s already said about how the contents of the report were assembled and what his role was.
Galea again reminds the witness of the discrepancy he claims exists between what his signature on the final report says he did and what the witness is now saying his role was.
The witness calmly reminds the court – for the nth time – of what his stated role was.
Galea nitpicks about whether the witness has searched and read the data, something which he already said he did.
The witness says that this is not the first time he was appointed as a court expert in relation the court processes in Malta, though the expert is not allowed to testify about the contents of the inquiries he was involved in.
He is asked about when he was first appointed by the Maltese courts, and he says it was somewhere around October 2017.
11:20 | Another discussion kicks off and Sittlington’s testimony is being suspended, as the defence is insisting that the witness is reluctant to assume responsibility for what he signed off on within the report.
26 people were involved in authoring the final report, but not all of them signed off on the report. The defence is making this argument on the basis that since not every contributor signed off on the report, the witness must assume responsibility insofar as he was concerned with this report. The witness has sticked to his previous statements about his limited involvement.
Magistrate Montebello comes down like a bag of hammers on the defence’s constant haranguing, stating that the court had explicitly authorised and confirmed the appointment of these experts, which is not meant to be interpreted as some sort of blind acceptance of the content of the experts’ report as it is not within this court’s remit to do so.
11:09 | Galea moves on to asking the witness about a note which he signed off on, which states that Harbinson’s role was to analyse data and prepare elements of the final report.
His signature is linked with a declaration to this effect, and the defence presses him on whether he was in fact involved in analysis or not. The witness does not budge, repeating his previous declaration about his limited involvement.
The defence insists that the brief which the inquiring magistrate appointed Sittlington to follow was broader than what the witness is claiming that he did, arguing that the witness is stating the opposite of what he previously stated under oath in front of the inquiring magistrate (that he would analyse findings and prepare reports).
The court takes up the defence’s questioning, asking him to explicitly state whether he was merely a liaison officer or not.
The witness says that “part of” his role was to act as a liaison officer. He says his liaising role came to be simply because someone from his firm had to talk to the magistrate and that it happened in an informal manner.
Galea now asks the witness to state whether there were specific parts of the report which he was involved in. The witness argues that “it would be impossible” to explicitly determine which paragraph was authored by who given that such a report involves so much input from so many different experts.
The witness insists that the compilation of the report was an ongoing process that cannot be tracked in the manner which the defence is asking about.
11:05 | Facing further questions from the defence, the witness confirms that he was tasked with establishing facts and inferring an informed opinion based on those facts.
Sittlington states that Harbinson was the lead firm which was in charge of authoring the reports. The witness is asked to clarify whether he formed such opinions, and he says he was not.
“So what was your role, then?”, the court asks.
The witness states (again) that he was involved in data research, coordination of searches, and collation of all gathered information onto a comprehensive spreadsheet. Effectively, the witness seems to state that he was in the position of a subordinate rather than being an author of these reports himself.
The defence now insists that the witness must clarify how come he was in charge of bringing all missing documentation to the court – some of which bore his signature – if he was simply serving as a liaison.
The witness says that the only reason he was involved in bringing those documents to court was because he was notified that they were missing. He signed off on the reports because he assisted with the process of including documentation within that report.
The report has an executive summary, supporting documentation, and a spreadsheet that supports the collation of all findings. The witness insists his role was limited to the tasks he described earlier.
11:00 | The witness is brought back in for the third time and Vince Galea starts questioning – he asks the witness to explain who brought him in for this inquiry.
Sittlington says that magistrate Gabriella Vella had initiated the first contact. He states that he was in regular contact with Miroslava Milenovic, one of the other leading court experts on this case.
10:57 | Noting the defence’s complaints about a lack of access to the data, the prosecution says that cross-examination about all that has been said today so far should occur today and that all matters which cannot be discussed today (due to this lack of access which the defence is complaining about) should be reserved for further cross-examination.
The court subsequently orders the witness to testify about what has been examined so far (the content of the documents exhibited by him today) and the alleged lack of impartiality and credibility. The accused will be given the right to review additional documentation and cross-examine the witness at a later stage.
10:53 | Magistrate Montebello is unimpressed, dictating a note which simply states that cross-examination may be reserved for a later date in relation to the documents which were exhibited today by the witness.
The defence insists on asking about the witness’ integrity and that they should be allowed to ask questions about the witness’ reporting in relation to the inquiry.
Defence lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell argues that the defence does not yet have access to the digital data which was submitted in the acts of the inquiry. The defence is not in a position to cross-examine this witness without access to this data, which the court is still busy processing.
We’ve been in this hearing for an hour and a half now and the witness was asked to leave the witness stand twice so the defence and the court could hash out technical aspects which the accused are complaining about.
In fact, the court expert has barely had any time to answer questions about his actual work or his expert impression of the case at hand. Instead, much of the hearing so far has been spent on whittling down the expert’s credibility and complaints about unequal access to the data.
10:46 | The testimony is temporarily suspended again as defence lawyer Vince Galea seeks to make another offhand submission, reminding the court that he has a lot of questions about what he describes as “many deficiencies and inaccuracies” in Sittlington’s contributions to the final report.
The magistrate states that all relevant cross-examination with this witness must occur today given that he has flown in specifically to testify in person, and that the defence is allowed to press ahead with its questions.
Galea further claims that the defence is at a disadvantage because of the fact that Sittlington submitted further documentation today, documentation which the prosecution was previously privy to.
10:42 | The court is still attempting to clarify whether any new information has been submitted in the documents brought to court today by the witness, and the matter now seems like it has been clarified.
Cross-examination now begins, with defence lawyer Edward Gatt leading with the first set of questions.
Gatt asks the witness to clarify who asked him to bring additional documents to court when it was noted that there was a miscommunication related to providing all the data to the court.
The witness says that the attorney general’s office made the request through inspector Borg, who is part of the prosecution’s team and was in service to the inquiring magistrate while the court carried out its investigation.
The defence asks the witness to clarify whether the inquiring magistrate issued a decree or whether this communication was submitted via email, and asks the witness whether he is able to submit evidence which notes this. The witness says he will check on this matter and get back to the defence.
10:36 | The defence is clamouring constantly about the witness’ thick accent and difficulty with discerning what he is saying.
This is now the third time magistrate Montebello has had to politely remind the witness to speak slowly, loudly, and clearly.
10:29 | The prosecution asks the witness to elaborate further about his involvement in searches. The expert states that he was involved in the process of submitting and executing search warrants, and that the office raids he was involved in include Pierre Sladden, Joseph Muscat, and auditor Chris Spiteri.
Referring to the inquiring magistrate’s report, the prosecution now asks the witness to confirm that the report cited in the inquiry is the same report he just referred to. The witness confirms that the report is present in its entirety in the documents of the inquiry.
10:23 | The expert continues explaining how the virtual searches for data were carried out.
He notes that sensitive communications like WhatsApp messages, email exchanges, and bank transactions were to be prioritised due to their obvious significance in relation to an investigation linked to money laundering and fraud.
Sittlington says that the main report itself – which the defence is contesting because of how much of the inquiring magistrate’s conclusions was derived from this report – was not compiled by himself.
He adds that the report and all relevant appendices were delivered to the inquiring magistrate in February of this year, shortly before the inquiry was brought to a swift conclusion.
The data was handed to the magistrate as a soft copy on an external hard drive, and that there was a minor miscommunication with the delivery of all documents before the witness personally ensured the miscommunication was cleared up.
The witness notes that he brought a complete copy in an additional hard drive that can be submitted to the court, noting that a hard copy of all the data was already in the court’s possession.
10:20 | We may miss some details about this witness’ testimony because of the court’s defective audio system and the expert’s particular accent.
10:17 | Sittlington is now called back in to testify. The prosecution begins questioning.
Refalo asks the basics first. Sittlington states that he was first involved with the inquiry in September 2020, and that his role was to research and investigate any elements of the deal which the inquiring magistrate deemed to be a priority.
The witness states that he was a police officer for over two decades, stationed in Belfast, Ireland, that he has served foreign countries in his role as a qualified fraud investigator.
Refalo asks the witness to walk the court through his involvement in the hospitals inquiry, in particular with the searches and hearings coordinated by the inquiring magistrate.
The witness states that he was involved in seizures of data and devices and that large troves of documents and data were seized as a result of the inquiry.
He was also involved in sifting through this data, using the same strategy which the inquiring magistrate had established for police officers who had assisted with these searches.
10:13 | The court rejects the defence’s request to ask questions about the expert’s alleged lack of impartiality due to the fact that Article 45 (Chapter 9) obliges the court to hear out a witness’ testimony – in this case, the expert – about the reports which he was involved in compiling.
Regarding the defence’s submissions, the court notes that given there was no request for the expert’s recusal, at this stage the court considers that no decision can be taken in relation to a recusal.
This court’s sole objective is to gather all the evidence which the attorney general and the defence request to be admitted into the acts of the case.
The court further notes that the allegations made by the defence in relation to the court expert’s so-called lack of integrity and impartiality do not, at first glance, occupy an immediate priority at this stage of the case. The defence will have the right to ask its questions during cross-examination at a later stage.
10:06 | As defence lawyer Vince Galea attempts to continue the defence’s full-frontal assault on the witness’ credibility, magistrate Montebello interrupts, arguing that at this stage of today’s hearing, all the defence must do is substantiate their argument and move on to asking the witness questions.
09:59 | Filletti continues: the defence argues that the court is obliged by law to ensure that court experts are impartial and that they are competent to carry out their duties.
He claims that the witness – who remains outside as defence lawyers pre-emptively tear his credibility to shreds – omitted information which indicates he had attempted to abuse his privileged position to sell commercial services to the police corps.
The defence’s argument rests on the notion that such an expert cannot possibly be considered impartial if he is also attempting to provide professional services to law enforcement.
Edward Gatt gets in on the action: the defence now adds that the expert in question had a run-in with UK court authorities, accusing him of being “a repeat perpetrator” of dubious practices, to the point of having had previous appointments within that jurisdiction rescinded.
09:53 | The witness’ testimony is temporarily suspended while the defence and the prosecution discuss Galea’s request. The prosecution rejects the defence’s request, arguing that the defence has every right to question the witness according to procedure (vitiating the need for additional requests of this kind).
Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo insists that the court can benefit from the reassurance that the expert’s integrity was already vetted by the inquiring magistrate.
Galea pointedly reminds the court that early on, the defence had registered its objections to the selection of court experts and that it is only seeking to preserve its right to question the witness about his integrity and to prevent being overruled on this line of questioning at a later stage.
09:48 | Magistrate Montebello calls upon defence lawyer Stefano Filletti, who seems to be absent. In the meantime, the prosecution informs the court that court expert Sam Sittlington will be testifying again today.
Sittlington walks up to the stand and takes the oath shortly after the court confirms that the cross-examination will be held in English. And: Filletti makes his slightly late appearance in court.
Before Sittlington begins his testimony, defence lawyer Vince Galea requests permission to ask the witness about his integrity and track record as an expert. Effectively, the defence seeks to question the witness’ reliability as an expert.
Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell says he will get in on the roasting action, along with everyone else on the defence.
09:42 | Following the arrival of Magistrate Rachel Montebello in the courtroom, and the usual roll call, it’s now about technical annotations on absent defendants – and ensuring they’ are’re all covered by sick leave certificates whenever they informed the court they were unable to be present.
09:35 | Good Morning, live from Hall 22 where the compilation of evidence against disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat and his associates and colleagues continues this morning.
We need your support!
Reporting about this case has become a full-time job for us on certain days. We are not getting paid for delivering this public service, but greatly appreciate your donation to NEWZ.mt using our Revolut payment page.
Please leave a reference to ‘Court Blog’, so we’re able to allocate the amount received to this project.
