Former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and former judge Patrick Vella – accused of accepting bribes to reduce a drug trafficker’s jail term – have chosen to stand trial by the bench, as opposed to a trial by jury.

Separate sittings were held yesterday in the cases against Dr Arrigo and Dr Vella for the defences’ submissions prior to trial. Both defence teams asked whether certain telephone calls and their transcripts were to be admitted as evidence. The calls were recorded due to police taps.

Dr Arrigo’s defence attorney, Dr Joseph Giglio, told the court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono, that his client had not participated in the calls in question, but he was mentioned and allegedly quoted by third parties – other people implicated in the case.

Speaking about the same telephone calls and transcripts, Dr Jose Herrera, a member of Dr Vella’s defence, claimed they amounted to “documentary hearsay” and should not be considered evidence in themselves.

Both attorneys told the court that these calls and transcripts can only be considered evidence if the people recorded subsequently admit the voices are theirs and they confirm under oath what they heard the accused say.

“There will be no jurors to be influenced or impressed by a document that is then declared inadmissible and therefore it will fall to the presiding judge to decide what is or is not acceptable evidence,” said Mr Justice Galea Debono.

The judge mentioned this point in both Dr Vella and Dr Arrigo’s sitting and therefore this showed that both former judges chose to stand trial by the bench instead of a trial by jury. The laws of Malta state that this is a choice open to all those standing trial, except an accused facing life imprisonment.

Regarding the telephone calls and the subsequent transcripts, Mr Justice Galea Debono explained that at this stage they could be important or relevant. “They might eventually just be used to control witnesses called to the stand,” he said.

Prosecuting Officer, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Tonna Lowell is due to give his views on whether the telephone calls and their transcripts constitute hearsay evidence or not at the next sitting, and in both cases.

Dr Giglio and Dr Joseph Abela appeared for Dr Arrigo. Dr Herrera, Dr Michael Sciriha and Dr Toni Abela appeared for Dr Vella.