An Appeal’s Court, presided over by, among others, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, has turned down a request for him to abstain from presiding over the case of former judges Patrick Vella and Noel Arrigo because there was no suspicion that the Chief Justice would not be impartial.

The request for the abstention was made by the lawyers of former judge Patrick Vella in the light of the fact that in August 2002, when the case first came to light, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano sat on the Commission for the Administration of Justice which discussed the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and former judge Dr Vella, who at the time were still in office.

The two former judges are presently facing separate criminal proceedings for allegedly accepting bribes to reduce the punishment of Mario Camilleri in an appeal judgment handed down on 5 July 2002. The prison sentence had, in fact, been reduced.

A few months ago, the Criminal Court dismissed a series of preliminary pleas filed by the two former judges and adjourned the case indefinitely for trial.

But the two appealed against this decision and the case was transferred before the Court of Criminal Appeal presided by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice David Scicluna.

During the appeal proceedings, Dr Vella’s lawyers filed a note in which they called on Chief Justice De Gaetano to abstain from presiding over all the sittings in the Court of Criminal Appeal since he sat on the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which had discussed the impeachment motion against the two judges.

In a judgement handed down on Thursday, the Court of Criminal Appeal said there was no suspicion that Chief Justice De Gaetano would not be impartial if he continued to preside over the appeal. On the other hand, the judgement said, one of Dr Vella’s lawyers, Dr Toni Abela, said he and his client had full confidence in the Chief Justice, although some time later they called for his abstention.

The judgement also included a reference to a judgement of a South African constitutional court in which it said that “…the reasonableness of the apprehension (on whether a judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case) must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judge to administer justice without fear or favour and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training and experience”.

The quoted judgement continued that “…At the same time, it must never be forgotten that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and a judicial officer should not hesitate to abstain if there are reasonable grounds…that…(he/she) will not be impartial”.

Dr Toni Abela, Dr Michael Schiriha and Dr José Herrera represented Dr Vella while Dr George Abela and Dr Joseph Giglio are appearing for Dr Arrigo in the appeal proceedings.