Good Morning from Hall 22
Court expert’s testimony delayed yet again following video request
11:25 | As the prosecution breezes through a flurry of testimonies, a pattern in their line of questioning emerges: it seems like the prosecution has homed in on the accounts of the key lawyers which the inquiry identified as facilitators who were necessary for the industrial scale money laundering that characterised the hospitals concession.
Magistrate Leonard Caruana turns to the prosecution and the defence to set the next dates for hearings: they settle for 17 and 21 January, both from 09:30.
Defence lawyer Gianella de Marco argues that Sittlington should be able to testify by the time the date of the next hearing rolls around. The prosecution repeats that the defence’s response to Sittlington’s video conferencing request remains pending and that it should be settled accordingly.
The sitting is closed. Thanks for following!
11:10 | The next witness, BNF Bank representative Joshua Attard, was asked to provide documentation about accounts which pertain to Kevin Deguara, Jean-Karl Farrugia, and Deborah Ann Chappell.
Deguara and Farrugia did have accounts at the bank while Chappell did not, and barring a minor correction in one of the documents, the witness presents all relevant documentation as directed by the court and the prosecution.
Another witness, representing Sparkasse Bank, says that she does not have any bank statements to present in relation to Jean-Karl Farrugia’s name as, though she was asked to present any relevant documentation in the accused’s regard, there did not seem to be any open accounts which are held in his name.
11:00 | After being exempted from professional secrecy, the next witness, Sarah Rousey from Bank of Valletta notes she was asked to present bank statements for Jean-Karl Farrugia, Kenneth Deguara, and Kevin Deguara (January 2013 – December 2023), the accused who represent the firm known as DF Advocates.
The witness steps off the stand shortly after around a dozen ring files’ worth of bank statements are passed on to the court.
Rebecca Micallef takes the witness stand to present APS bank account statements for Deborah Ann Chappell (2013 – 2020). Chappell had five accounts at the bank, and the documentation is presented accordingly.
David Spiteri from HSBC presents bank statements for Deborah Ann Chappell, Kevin Deguara, and Jean-Karl Farrugia. The accounts were opened in 2013 and remain active to this day. The witness steps off the stand after the documentation is presented to court.
10:50 | Roderick Livori, senior officer at the Planning Authority, is the next witness. His previous testimony in the case can be found here.
Livori is shown copies of planning permits which were issued to MTrace and Malta Enterprise, which he had previously been asked to present to the court. Livori says that he brought additional documentation which was requested by the prosecution.
Specifically, he is presenting invoices which were issued for the respective entities involved in the various planning developments relating to the concession (the invoices relate to fee payments for processing of planning permits).
The witness takes a few minutes to patiently read out the details of every relevant permit and document he was asked to present while the court takes note of who was responsible for these applications and when they were filed.
Livori steps off the stand.
10:40 | Though the defence objects to the prosecution’s line of questioning, the magistrate allows the question to stand.
The witness says that the DoC was asked to provide advice about whether this concession could be classified as a public-service concession, and that they agreed that it does fit the criteria as such.
The decision to assign the concession to Projects Malta and not the DoC because of the department’s perceived lack of legal standing in this regard.
“That’s the only involvement that the Department of Contracts had with this concession, and that’s it”, Cachia states emphatically, folding his notes and stuffing them in his breast pocket to drive the point home.
Defence lawyer Franco Debono steps up to begin cross-examination. He asks the witness whether he remembers when he testified, and he says that he did so in July. A bizarre question, but it concludes the witness’ testimony.
10:30 | Next witness is Anthony Cachia, director general of the department of Contracts. His previous testimony in the case can be found here.
The prosecution asks the witness to explain the difference between a normal contract and a public-private partnership.
Cachia obliges, and notes that a normal contract is an agreement to provide a service while a public-private partnership involves shifting the risk to the private sector and their payment depends on the delivery of relevant contractual milestones.
Upon further questioning about his department’s involvement in the hospitals concession, the witness repeats what he said in his previous testimony: prior a change in legislation in 2016, the department was not involved in public-private partnerships, including the hospitals concession.
“The department would only get involved if, at most, someone asked for advice on how the process should be carried out”, Cachia states.
The prosecution asks the witness whether they were involved in this concession in any capacity. The witness says that he had held a meeting with then-parliamentary secretary Ronald Mizzi and executives from Projects Malta. The meeting was held in March 2015.
“You said that there was a change in legislation in 2016. What led to the change of legislation?”, Refalo asks the witness.
Cachia explains that at the time, concession were not adequately regulated at an EU-wide level, and that there was a concerted effort to harmonise public procurement laws to address this lacuna. This culminated in an EU directive which was later transposed into Maltese law in October 2016.
The witness further notes that meetings about this legal issue began in 2014, and that as far as he knows, Malta was one of the first member states to implement this directive.
The prosecution asks the witness to elaborate about whether the department of contracts had initiated the process of revising the law in 2014. The prosecution specifies that he wants to know whether the department of contracts – which was already negotiating the concession in 2014 – had already planned to align the concession with the impending EU-wide change.
In other words: did the government enter into negotiations about a concession which it knew would be outdated in a couple of years’ time?
10:20 | Much like yesterday’s hearing, court registrar Margaret Spiteri testifies that she was asked to bring all relevant documentation from the case of Adrian Delia v The State. She steps off the stand as quickly as she got on.
The defence, yet again, asks the prosecution to indicate clearly why it is choosing to submit this documentation. Though I’m certainly not a lawyer, I can safely assume that the prosecution wishes to include these documents because of the court’s unequivocal ruling that declared the concession fraudulent and illegal.
Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo states that they presented these documents for the simple reason that a relevant judgement of this kind gives the court “a full picture” of the facts of the case.
The defence collectively objects to this, arguing that this documentation is not admissible in this case since the accused were not part of the case.
The defence further argues that the sentence in question cannot be used as evidence unless the prosecution clearly indicates what it is substantiating by adding the court’s previous verdict to the acts of this case.
It is important to note that the case of Adrian Delia v the state was decreed in the civil court, while this case is being heard in the criminal court (which is why they are considered ‘separate’ in technical terms). The prosecution reserves the right to respond to any objections raised by the defence at an opportune stage, indicating they are not going to substantiate their argument further. The court makes a note of this and moves on.
10:10 | Bernice Bugeja, a financial controller and certified auditor, is the first witness in today’s hearing.
Though she was to present documentation which the prosecution deems relevant to this inquiry, she notes that she cannot do so as it may be material that overlaps with other ongoing magisterial inquiries and is therefore not in a position to present them in the hospitals case without being granted formal permission.
The defence asks whether certain documents can be redacted to cover any sensitive material which cannot be exposed, and the witness replies that she cannot redact documentation without the court’s consent.
Defence lawyer Franco Debono complains to the court that the defence is unable to scrutinise documentation it has requested from the prosecution and the witnesses it has summoned to date, referring in particular to invoices and relevant qualifications from court experts who have already testified.
Defence lawyers Charles Mercieca and Franco Grima concur, adding that the defence must obtain further information about how these experts were paid and whether their work was subject to any oversight.
After taking into account the witness’ testimony and the defence’s submissions, Magistrate Leonard Caruana decides that, due to the fact that some of the documentation to be submitted by the witness contains information about other inquiries which have not yet been concluded and which are not directly related to the hospitals case, only the documents which can be submitted straight away will be submitted by the witness.
Bugeja steps off the stand.
10:00 | Magistrate Leonard Caruana formally notes down the request made by Sittlington and the prosecution.
Defence lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell wants to know whether Sittlington had submitted a medical certificate justifying his absence from a previous hearing held in October.
After briefly looking through his notes, magistrate Leonard Caruana informs the defence that Sittlington had submitted his certificates accordingly.
The defence notifies the court that they will be submitting their response in writing in another hearing.
09:45 | Lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo notifies the court that court expert Sam Sittlington will not be able to testify in person, requesting to testify via video conferencing instead.
Defence lawyer Gianella de Marco asks the prosecution to explain why this is the case. Refalo insists that Sittlington’s cross-examination can happen today if everyone is in agreement that Sittlington can testify via video conference.
The magistrate suspends the sitting, asking the parties to settle the matter of Sittlington’s testimony in a 5 minute break.
09:40 | Good Morning, live from Hall 22 where the compilation of evidence against Chris Fearne and other defendants continues.
While Magistrate Leonard Caruana concludes the roll call before starting today’s hearing, we note with some concern that there are just three newsrooms reporting on the case – yours truly, Times of Malta, and Newsbook. We hope this does not lead to further misreporting on this case.
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.
