Rejecting the defence’s arguments, the court has confirmed the appointment of experts in the Vitals magisterial inquiry
Court confirms experts’ appointment in Vitals magisterial inquiry
13:14 | Thanks for following
The next sitting in the Vitals compilation of evidence in the case against former health minister Chris Fearne, central bank governor Edward Scicluna and 13 other defendants is scheduled for Tuesday, 2 July, 11am.
Thank you for following our live blog today. Julian Delia will present a summary of today’s sitting in NEWZ MILL-QORTI later today.
Michael Kaden
12:50 | Court confirms experts’ appointment
Magistrate Leonard Caruana refers to the defence’s stated intent to contest how court experts were appointed to assist with this inquiry:
He says that the lawyer (Franco Galea) who previously asked the court to delay its decision on this matter, due to a lack of time afforded to himself and his client to review documentation relevant to the inquiry, now states that he reserves his right to further contest the way these experts were appointed at a later stage.
The magistrate states that, after having seen what was presented in the inquiry report and reviewing the defence’s reservations on this matter, the court confirms the appointment of these experts, thus rejecting the defence’s arguments on this matter.
Defence lawyer Joseph Mizzi insists that the prosecution absolutely must substantiate why it is refusing to allow Anthony Scerri’s notes from the police file to be cited while there are dozens of boxes of evidence with highly sensitive data which has been exhibited as evidence in the case.
The prosecution rebuts just as furiously, arguing that such data must not prejudice any potential further investigations which may be carried out by the police.
The court, after taking cognisance of the facts as presented to it and the relevant legal provisions regulating state data and the prosecution’s concerns about this matter, nonetheless accepts the police file being exhibited as part of the acts of the case as long as it is solely in the form of the witness’ notes on the file rather than the file itself.
The former inspector’s notes on this police file – specifically, a list of names which were considered relevant to the case – are to be kept under seal and is to be viewed solely by the parties of the case.
The court moves on to dealing with the issue related to Article 412A, whether a person is brought to court under arrest or not.
It seems like the magistrate is keen on wrapping up today’s proceedings before we close at 1.30pm and is going over procedural loose ends ahead of the next hearings, including when he is set to decide on the freezing orders and the defence’s request for a member of the prosecution to testify about the authenticity of identifying documents they previously submitted.
Former police inspector Anthony Scerri is briefly brought back to the witness stand to formally authenticate his notes before they are submitted to the court as evidence.
Julian Delia
12:35 | Franklin Calleja
The next witness in the stand is Franklin Calleja, the Court’s deputy registrar.
Last time, Calleja was asked about whether the police made any formal requests for the handing over of inquiry documentation.
Facing cross-examination from Ezekiel Psaila, the deputy registrar confirms that an inquiring magistrate appoints court experts through a decree which is documented and noted down in the final process verbal of the magisterial inquiry.
He is asked to confirm the authenticity of documents given to the defence, and he does.
Calleja is further asked to detail how the list of court experts is compiled and appointed. The prosecution asks about what the relevance of this line of questioning is.
The defence rebuts that since the case is based entirely on the inquiring magistrate’s report, then the way this list of experts is compiled takes on additional importance, even if we are still at the prima facie stage.
Calleja briefly explains the process and how it works, pointing out that if an inquiring magistrate wishes to refer to an expert who is not listed in this database, then the magistrate is free to do so. This list is understood to be meant to serve as a guide for the court rather than as a registry.
The defence asks the deputy registrar to inform the court about which of the experts appointed by the inquiring magistrate are also noted on this list.
The prosecution objects on the basis that the inquiring magistrate has all the discretion at law to appoint experts as deemed fit by the magistrate. The magistrate is not tied to the list in question and does not need to refer to it.
However, the court accepts the defence’s request and orders the deputy registrar to provide the information requested.
Calleja is asked about whether any due diligence was carried out on the court experts and how they were appointed. Calleja states that it is the ministry of justice which carries out such exercises and that such a question can only be answered by a ministry representative.
Calleja steps off the stand. He was the last witness in today’s sitting.
Julian Delia
12:27 | Superintendent Rennie Stivala
Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi asks police superintendent Stivala to outline the extent of his involvement in the searches ordered by the inquiring magistrate, details which Stivala already stated during his previous testimony.
The searches Stivala was involved in include Technoline, Nexia BT, as well as several requests made to mobile phone providers in relation to mobile data of the accused which needed to be preserved.
Julian Delia
11:52 | Former inspector Anthony Scerri
Former police inspector Anthony Scerri, who was ordered to revise a police file on this case, now takes the oath and defence lawyer Joseph Mizzi starts the cross-examination.
Mizzi: “Now that you’ve seen the police file, can you explain what the inquiring magistrate’s requests were in relation to Deborah Ann Chappell?”
Scerri: “She was asked to testify in a sitting. There was only one request in Chappell’s regard from the magistrate.”
Mizzi: “You also testified she was not considered a suspect by the police. Are you still of the same mind about her, after having revised the file?”
Scerri: “Yes, I am of the same mind, I have not changed my assessment of this.”
Mizzi refers to a document outlining court notifications sent to BOV employees for them to testify in the magisterial inquiry. Scerri confirms that the document in question was effectively used as an official list to keep track of all the witnesses. Chappell is listed among them.
Mizzi: “During your last testimony, you said that you never considered Chappell as a suspect even though you asked BOV to provide further information about Chappell.”
Scerri repeats what he already said last time: “The police did not keep a separate list of suspects nor did it investigate in that manner.”
Scerri says that Deborah Chappell was one of the names cited to BOV as a person whose accounts were to be looked into to ascertain whether she received payments into her accounts from lawyer and fellow accused David Meli.
Mizzi: “So how can you justify making such a request without describing it as an investigation?”
Scerri: “The investigation was being carried out on behalf of the inquiring magistrate, not the police force.”
Mizzi now directs the focus to a raid related to Steward Healthcare. He asks the witness to testify what the stated objective was and what the inquiring magistrate asked them to look for.
Scerri describes how in all searches in general, there were specific keywords and terms which were indicated by the inquiring magistrate and that officers were always provided with a ‘standardised’ list of what to look for.
Scerri details how names of the accused who were already identified as potential suspects by the inquiry by then would often be run through devices such as laptops and mobiles to determine whether anything related to them can be found, for example, running Chappell’s name through a Steward Healthcare device to see whether her name crops up.
Scerri also states that their parameters for searches and seizures, in particular for whole computer servers, were quite restrictive, in the sense that they had clear orders to not seize something unless it is deemed necessary to do so.
Facing more questions about the instructions given to police officers carrying out searches, Scerri further notes that forensic experts and analysts were also providing oversight to police officers while they were carrying out these searches to ensure that nothing which isn’t absolutely necessary is seized and that all protocols are observed closely.
Mizzi insists that Scerri must justify how Deborah Ann Chappell was subject to searches, seizures, and asked to testify but was somehow not considered as a suspect.
Scerri, noting that this question was already asked in his last testimony, states that he looked at his diary on the day in which Chappell testified.
Mizzi is contesting the legitimacy of the way Chappell was asked to testify because the defence is arguing that the police clearly considered her as a suspect but she was not identified as one nor was she notified of this.
Reading directly from his diary on the day and the appointments he had that day, Scerri insists that he does not recall exactly how that testimony went but that he does remember being present for it. He claims that he is unable to recall the details in spite of his best efforts to do so.
As the witness prepares to read out more details from his notes about the police file in question, the prosecution objects to further details being read out from this file due to the possibility that any additional police investigations which may be carried out in regard to third parties may be breached.
Lawyer Mizzi rebuts that this data from tis police file is essential to determining whether Chappell’s right to be cautioned as a suspect was breached or not.
Magistrate Caruana determines that the matter must be suspended at this stage of the proceedings, but cannot decide on this issue while Scerri’s testimony is ongoing.
The prosecution requests a ban on the names read out by Scerri since this may prejudice ongoing investigations. The request is upheld.
Franco Debono now asks the witness about the search warrant which was issued in relation to DF Consultancy Services as well as Jean Carl Farrugia and Kevin Deguara, seeking to determine whether the warrant was issued to search them personally as lawyers or whether they were asked to search their residences as well.
Previously, the lawyers and the firm in question have already eaten up more than 12 hours of court time because of the deficient procedure through which these search warrants were issued and the way the witnesses were notified.
Julian Delia
11:37 | Inspector Wayne Borg
The first witness in today’s sitting is police inspector Wayne Borg. We’ve seen Borg before waffling magnanimously when asked about his involvement in the searches.
Defence lawyer Ezekiel Psaila asks the witness about his involvement in the inquiry itself, and Borg sticks to a script we’ve heard ad nauseam from the police by now, saying that his role was limited to assisting the magistrate as necessary.
Psaila asks about one raid which was carried out in September 2021 at DF Advocates’ office. Borg testifies that he was not involved in that raid.
Asked by defence lawyer Joseph Mizzi, Borg says he was tasked with assisting the inquiry in August 2022.
He is asked about his involvement in a police search carried out at Steward’s offices and notes that nobody was present in that office except for a receptionist, Steward executives showed up later. Former police inspector Anthony Scerri was coordinating the search.
The police inspector is also asked about how witnesses asked to testify on behalf of BOV were notified and how come he signed off on some of the notifications on behalf of former inspector Scerri.
Borg states that there was an instance in which he did so because Scerri had delegated this to him when sick with COVID-19.
Lawyer Tonna Lowell takes over cross examination and asks about Borg’s previous testimony in which he outlined how police inspectors had always followed the inquiring magistrate’s orders in writing.
Tonna Lowell specifically states that there is a notable difference between the inquiring magistrate’s order that some of the accused must be summoned and cautioned as accomplices to a crime – under Article 42(D) – rather than as witnesses.
Borg is asked to explain how come there is such a difference between what the inquiring magistrate asked of the police and what the police actually did.
Inspector Borg states that he is not able to explain this and that the charges were issued in this manner at the discretion of the office of the attorney general.
A few more defence lawyers ask Borg similar questions but they may as well be asking the wall behind the inspector – he is not able to explain this discrepancy between the inquiring magistrate’s orders and the charges issued by the prosecution.
The witness steps off the stand.
Julian Delia
11:18 | Prosecution objects
Prosecutor Francesco Refalo objects primarily in light to the fact that there was no explicit reference to which constitutional rights are being breached. Furthermore, the prosecution objects on the basis of the fact that this matter has already been raised.
The request for a constitutional ruling on a matter which has already been raised beforehand should not be referred to the constitutional court again.
In response to the prosecution’s submission, defence lawyer Filetti states that Articles 6 and 9 from the European Convention of Human Rights are the ones which are being referred to, as well as Article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Lawyer Psaila refers to the defence’s previous requests for all the documentation related to the case and states that they were given these documents just yesterday.
He accuses the prosecution of failing to substantiate their freezing orders and thereby sabotaging the defence’s ability to achieve equality of arms by illustrating what their freezing orders are based on.
“How can the attorney general, the defender of the Republic of Malta, object to a request by the defence for a constitutional ruling about what we believe is a breach of a fundamental human right when we are not told where to find the evidence to substantiate these orders?”, Psaila asks.
Filletti steps in again and proposes suspending the terms of the attachment orders, with Psaila insisting that the prosecution must be forced to substantiate the figures cited by freezing orders, emphasising his previous point about what the defence keeps describing as a breach of their clients’ rights to a fair hearing.
The back and forth has drawn to a conclusion as the magistrate says he will decree on this issue later.
Julian Delia
11:09 | Freezing orders
Lawyer Filletti refers to Wednesday’s sitting in the constitutional court case filed by disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat and specifically cites the request for a constitutional ruling on the freezing orders.
Filletti, on behalf of his client Deborah Chappell, further concurs with the argument raised by Psaila and that there is nothing to add in relation to this request.
The prosecution argues that the amounts highlighted by the asset freeze are already the subject of court proceedings and that court precedent states that freezing order requests cannot be subject to two separate proceedings at the same time.
The court notes that the request for a constitutional ruling has not yet been formally filed.
“It’s useless to make submissions on a request that has yet to be made, if it will be made”, Magistrate Caruana says.
Filleti says the defence is asking the court to refer this matter to the constitutional court on the basis of yesterday’s decree from the criminal court which states that a ruling ought to be issued.
The court is asked to recognise that in such an advanced stage of proceedings related to these freezing orders, a breach of the right to a fair hearing may ensue.
The defence formally asks the court to refer the matter for a separate constitutional ruling – one that is separate and distinct from the request filed by Joseph Muscat – to determine whether the procedures related to the issuance of freezing orders are detrimental to the fundamental human rights of the accused.
Julian Delia
10:59 | Prosecution requested to testify
Defence lawyer Ezekiel Psaila (Clients: Jean Carl Farrugia, Kenneth Deguara, Kevin Deguara and DF Advocates) declares he has nothing to add to his request asking for a member of the prosecution to testify about the amounts mentioned in their freezing order requests.
Julian Delia
10:48 | Witness list for 2 July
Magistrate Leonard Caruana is making the roll call of the defendants and their legal counsel, with lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici joining today’s sitting remotely.
Lawyer Franco Debono asks the court whether it was possible to summon former inspector Anthony Scerri after 11am since he is being called in other courtroom.
For the purposes of prima facie stage, the prosecution declares that it will not be summoning any further witnesses.
The defence lists George Frendo, Shawn Spiteri – two police officers who were involved in searches – police inspectors Rennie Stivala, Wayne Borg, and former inspector Anthony Scerri.
Defence – George Frendo, Shawn Spiteri (both police officers who were involved in VGH searches), Anthony Scerri (former police inspector), Rennie Stivala, Wayne Borg (also both police inspectors)
Following a request from defence lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell in relation to formulating lists of witnesses in time for the next hearing, the court and the parties of the case discuss how to best schedule upcoming hearings.
Last week magistrate Leonard Caruana outlined that the next hearing on 2 July will be dedicated to a contentious point about the interpretation of money laundering prevention laws and how asset freezes ought to be issued.
The defence must submit the list of witnesses they wish to summon by the next hearing.
Other defence lawyers concur with Filletti and notify the court they will be submitting their lists as requested by the court, with the exception of defence lawyer Arthur Azzopardi who says that he does not need more witnesses but still nonetheless stated that he will contest the prima facie stage.
Further witnesses for 2 July on the defence’s list are: the director-general of the National Auditor’s Office (NAO) or a representative, a representative for Jobsplus, and cabinet secretary Ryan Spagnol.
Julian Delia
10:30 | Bonġu
Good Morning! Julian Delia (The Critical Angle project) and Michael Kaden (NEWZ.mt) welcome you to another live blog.
