Joseph Muscat and his associates are back in court to answer to charges of corruption in the hospitals privatisation deal
Police relied on hospitals inquiry, decided not to investigate
14:56 | We’re done!
The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 June 2024, 11am.
Julian Delia (The Critical Angle project) and Michael Kaden (NEWZ.mt) wish you a relaxed afternoon, although you may, like us, be following the local election results coming in from Counting Hall in Naxxar.
14:39 | Defence with fresh requests
Lawyer Grima requests police inspector Anthony Scerri to testify during the next hearing. The court accepts this request.
Lawyer Franco Debono asks the court to consider the fact that the police did not investigate or give an opportunity to the accused to state their version of events, including determining whether the accused has reasonable justification for the source of gains.
In light of this, Debono is asserting that this may breach defendants’ right to a fair hearing. All defence lawyers are backing this plea except for Tonna Lowell who says he wanted to word it slightly differently.
Defence lawyer Filletti requests that the AG’s lawyers who signed off on the charges must also testify as to why they issued those charges.
The prosecution objects to this request as it was not their role to determine how the investigation was carried out.
Lawyers Mercieca and Debono counter this claim, arguing that recently updated laws show that the AG is in fact vested with the power to carry out its own investigations.
Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi requests that Serbian anti-money laundering compliance expert Miroslava Milenkovic is asked to testify during the next hearing.
The court rejects this request, referring to Article 550(1)(2) of the Criminal Code, which states that court experts who aided a magisterial inquiry cannot be asked to testify in proceedings resultant from the inquiry.
The court orders the defence lawyers that their witnesses should be listed and announced ahead of the next hearings and must be presented to the court no later than Monday 17 June.
Julian Delia
14:21 | Police decided not to investigate
Lawyer Veronique Dalli continues to press inspector Borg to answer specific questions which are not related to the defence of her client, with magistrate Montebello intervening as necessary.
When asked who took the decision not to investigate from the police’s end, Borg states that he was not always given a copy of the relevant documents. He says he did not have visibility on the investigation.
The magistrate insists on an answer on who took the decision to not investigate. Borg states that when he joined the police corps, there was no investigation and that he was not asked investigate. He confirms that it was his unit that decided not to investigate.
Joseph Muscat’s lawyer Vincent Galea asks if Borg, Hubert Cini, and assistant commissioner Fabian Fleri were the ones who took the decision not to investigate specifically. Borg confirms that this is the case.
Asked to confirm who told Borg to sign off on the charges, the witness confirms he did so according to the magistrate’s orders.
Galea insists on trying to ask the witness about how he managed to figure out the specific amounts listed in the freezing orders.
The witness argues that the prosecuting team decided to follow up on the magistrate’s conclusions, along with a review of the appendices which outlined these conclusions.
Yet again, the magistrate is forced to interrupt the defence’s line of questioning: “You are not allowed to ask questions about who took decisions within the police corps because this is not relevant to the defence of your client – who took the decision won’t make a difference to you.”
Galea pleads his request further, and the witness is asked to clarify. The witness states that the decision to rest on the magistrate’s conclusions was taken by the prosecuting team collectively.
Galea continues to poke holes in Borg’s arguments, at one point claiming that “it seems like the witness knows nothing” about the investigation that was carried out.
Montebello is forced to interrupt Galea yet again, who keeps asking direct questions about how the appendices were factored into the decision not to investigate. Montebello overrules Galea’s questions on the appendices.
Lawyer Jason Grima asks Borg about whether he knows anything about how money flows related to the accused Jonathan Vella were investigated, along with all other charges in his regard.
Inspector Borg replies ‘No’ to every single question, saying he does not know how the conclusions were determined.
Franco Debono asks the witness to clarify whether a representative of Sciacca Grill was asked to give their version of events. The witness says they did not.
Defence lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell: “Do you know who carried out the investigation?”
Borg: “The inquiring magistrate.”
Tonna Lowell: “Who else?”
Borg: “I don’t know.”
Julian Delia
13:18 | Police inspector cross-examined
Police Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg takes the witness stand for cross-examination by lawyer Stefano Filletti.
Asked whether he carried out the VGH investigation, Borg answered “Nobody investigated this, we rested on the inquiry report”.
Filletti: “On what exactly?”
Borg: “The inquiring magistrate’s conclusions.”
Further, Borg states that “the boxes of evidence were never in the police’s possession”, clarifying that he was the inspector signing off on Hillman’s arrest warrant based on the magistrate’s report.
Filletti: “Did you do anything to independently verify the experts’ conclusions?”
Borg: “No.”
Filletti: “Did you speak to Adrian Hillman directly?”
Borg: “No.”
In Franco Debono’s cross examination, Borg emphasises that the police rested on the inquiring magistrate’s conclusions and that there was nothing to report from their end in terms of investigations because they did not investigate. The police did not follow up on the report itself either.
The lawyer asks whether the police endeavoured to look into whether Sciacca Grill, Debono’s client, gave a reasonable explanation for their funds. The police emphasise again that they didn’t.
Debono: “If the police didn’t investigate this, what was the police’s work in this case?”
Borg: “We assisted the inquiring magistrate whenever she required notifications to be submitted to the accused.”
Debono: “So you are not in a position to tell us what evidence there is against the accused?”
Borg: “No.”
Debono: “So if you haven’t seen this evidence and you didn’t investigate, how can you testify about this case?”
Borg: “We rested on the magisterial inquiry’s conclusions.”
Borg: “The only time we looked at the evidence boxes was when we carried them to the AG’s office.”
Inspector: “The only time we looked at the evidence boxes was when we carried them to the AG’s office.”
Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg
Lawyer Jason Grima argues that the police did investigate to some degree, because they did raid Christopher Spiteri’s office, and asks how the police force can state they did not investigate.
Borg distances himself from Grima’s argument, stating that he had no visibility on investigations carried out by other officers.
The witness claims he does not remember whether he saw the formal request which authorised investigations in which he was not involved.
Lawyer Gianella De Marco: “So did you just copy the inquiry’s conclusions like a parrot?”
Borg: “I repeat that we rested on the inquiry’s conclusions.”
Borg insists that his role specifically was solely to notify witnesses and accused throughout the course of the inquiry and that he issued charges when the inquiry was concluded.
De Marco tries to pillory the witness with specific questions, whether he investigated Gatt, BOV, and money flows, but the witness resists, making it clear yet again that his involvement was limited.
Magistrate Montebello orders the witness to not respond to any questions which are intended to ascertain on what grounds the witness issued those freezing order requests. Questions must only be limited to fleshing out the defence of the accused.
The court gives De Marco permission to ask questions about illicit gains which were allegedly made by Mario Gatt and on what grounds those assertions about illicit gains were made.
Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg insists that he has no recollection about the specific reasons why Gatt’s illicit gains were cited in said appendix and, again, that the police force solely rested on the conclusions of the inquiry.
The witness is being forced to repeat himself over and over, stating emphatically that “the police did not investigate”.
Borg confirms to lawyer Mark Vassallo that this was the first inquiry that he was involved in. The defence insists on trying to crucify the witness by arguing that he is not aware of what the protocol would typically be when carrying out an inquiry.
The magistrate defends the witness’ right not to answer direct questions which he is not in a position to answer.
Julian Delia
13:15 | Fresh requests
Montebello chides Filletti for submitting another request after the break, specifically because she said earlier that all requests must be made before the hearing was suspended. Allowing just one more request, Filletti starts make his request on the need of this report.
Filletti substantiates his argument, saying an inquiring magistrate does not carry out the investigations, but police inspectors do, so the police inspector who filed the charges should testify as to why he decided to file them.
Filletti says the court must establish that the police force did at least the bare minimum to investigate the case and that these facts must be confirmed under oath. No police inspector has done this in court as of yet, and Filletti argues that this is essential for the defence’s cross-examination process.
As Franco Debono interjects to submit yet another request on this – in spite of the magistrate’s order to submit those before the break – all defence lawyers join Filletti’s request. However, the lawyer for Steward’s British IT manager Clarence John Conger-Thompson, does not submit their name.
The prosecution replies that it will be addressing key witnesses in due time.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca argues that previous legal protocol in this regard is established and that if the investigating officer’s testimony were to be left for the post-prima facie evidence stage, it would be detrimental to the interests of the accused as there would not be a sworn statement from the investigating officer.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
13:05 | Filletti’s request rejected
After a not-so-brief suspension, we’re back in session again, as magistrate Montebello hands down her decree on the lawyer Filletti’s request on the revocation of the appointment of experts.
The court observes, as was correctly invoked by the prosecution, that this was not the correct stage to raise such plea, since the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry is to hear the evidence – in favour or against – and preserve that evidence at this stage.
The court rejects the request to revoke its decree by which it confirmed the court experts appointed during the inquiry.
Filletti argues that the prosecution must present the investigating official to formally confirm the report of their investigation.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
11:57 | Brief suspension
The sitting is briefly suspended for the court to take a decision on Franco Debono’s request for a full copy of the inquiry records. Lawyer Jason Grima and the rest have joined Debono’s demand.
Earlier, a BOV employee took the stand in order to present bank statements in relation with the freezing order against defendant Mario Victor Gatt from January 2023 until to date.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
11:46 | Prosecution rejects Filletti’s argument
Filletti, representing Adrian Hillman, asks the court to revoke the experts’ appointment throughout these proceedings, claiming these experts did not show they have knowledge of Malta’s criminal and penal code. He argues they were appointed due to their alleged expertise in determining whether the accused were involved in these crimes.
AG lawyer Francesco Refalo objects to the defence’s argument, saying that it was at the inquiring magistrate’s discretion which experts were deemed to be the best fit for the inquiry’s proceedings.
“I am attacking the way these experts were appointed”, Filletti rebuts, adding “If the court needs an expert to determine which acts are criminal in nature, the court is accepting that it does not have knowledge of how the criminal code works”.
There are xenophobic undertones in Filletti’s speech, as he argues that “we don’t need these foreign experts to tell us how our criminal code works”.
The court decides the matter will be decided upon later.
Julian Delia
11:30 | Objection to experts’ appointments
Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti objects to the way in which technical and forensic analyst specialists were appointed.
He says that the inquiring magistrate, Gabriella Vella, appointed experts to help her deduce whether there’s a crime.
This, Filletti explains, went against the normal practice of appointing experts to help the court with a specific area of expertise.
Magistrate Montebello raps Filletti immediately for not indicating the specific names of the experts in question, whereupon Filletti begins to name them one by one.
Lawyer Franco Debono exempts himself from Filletti’s position. He argues for access to the whole inquiry and that his client cannot defend himself without having an adequate amount of time to review it.
The magistrate rebuts that a request has already been made for all evidence to be given to the defence as soon as possible, and that today the prosecution must only prove their case on a prima facie basis.
Julian Delia
11:20 | Roll Call
Magistrate Rachel Montebello entered the courtroom and immediately proceeded with the roll call to ensure everyone is present.
Joseph Muscat is assisted by Vince Galea, Charlon Gouder, Ishmael Psaila, Etienne Borg Ferranti and Dominic Micallef. Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi are assisted by Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo.
David J Meli and Jonathan Vella are assisted by Giannella DeMarco and Charles Mercieca, while Spiteri is assisted by Jason Grima.
Pierre Sladden and a number of companies are assisted by Arthur Azzopardi.
Franco Debono and David Bonello are counsel to Sciacca Grill Ltd, while Stefano Filletti is counsel to Adrian Hillman.
Other lawyers include Stephen Tonna Lowell, Shazoo Ghaznavi, Jessica Formosa, Veronique Dalli, Rachel Powell and David Bonello.
Attorney General lawyers Francesco Refalo, Rebekah Spiteri and Shelby Aquilina are prosecuting together with police superintendent Hubert Cini and inspector Wayne Borg.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
11:10 | Good Morning
Bonġu!
Disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat arrived at court some 30 minutes earlier, without giving any comments to the media. Several supporters applauded Muscat on his way to the courts building.
Former minister Konrad Mizzi arrived at court shortly before 11am and maintained with reporters that court will confirm that he never did anything wrong.
Everyone is settling in the courtroom and the sitting is expected to begin shortly.
Today marks the beginning of the compilation of evidence, as the prosecution will be presenting prima facie evidence to substantiate the charges being levied at the accused.
Julian Delia, Michael Kaden
