Former Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna and three current or former permanent secretaries were among those who faced charges in connection with the hospitals on scandal, but what was a marathon 11-hour sitting could well be declared null after a blunder by the prosecution.
They headed to court a day after former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his former Chief of Staff Keith Schembri and former Minister Konrad Mizzi pleaded not guilty to charges also tied to the hospitals deal that was annulled last year.
The individuals charged alongside Fearne and Scicluna were former permanent secretaries Alfred Camilleri and Joseph Rapa, current permanent secretary Ronald Mizzi, tender adjudication committee members James Camenzuli, Manuel Castagna, and Robert Borg, financial controller Kenneth Deguara, and five lawyers: Kevin Deguara, Jean Carl Farrugia, Aron Mifsud Bonnici, Deborah Anne Chappell, and Bradley Gatt.
But a marathon 11-hour sitting which saw all of them plead not guilty to the charges against them ended in uncertainty at 10:15pm, after it emerged that one of the accused – an entity named DF Advocates – had not been notified about the case by the prosecution.
Although not directly stated by presiding magistrate Leonard Caruana, it was heavily implied that this means that the day’s proceedings will be declared null.
For a minute-by-minute commentary of how Wednesday developed, you may follow read below.
Alternatively, a summary of the day’s court proceedings may be found here.
23:20: With that we will be bringing our live commentary to a close. It has been a gruelling day for our staff, but we thank you for following us throughout the day and into the night. A summary of today's court proceedings has been uploaded and may be found here.
23:15: We expect there to be more full-bodied reactions to this tomorrow, but some are already making their voices on the incredible outcome of today heard.
Repubblika honorary President Robert Aquilina said on Facebook that “occult manoeuvres” are being done behind the scenes by Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg and Police Commissioner Angelo Gafa.
“If you mess up the judicial process, we will hold you personally responsible,” he said, and added that it’s obvious why they did not want Repubblika to be part of the proceedings.
Repubblika’s lawyer Jason Azzopardi spoke in a similar vein: “Tonight you can say thank you to Victoria Buttigieg and Angelo Gafa. I think the Bastille moment has arrived,” he wrote.
23:10: The magistrate’s final decree of the night has thrown a spanner into the works, particularly for the prosecution.
Although he didn’t spell it out, Magistrate Leonard Caruana effectively implied that the law would dictate now that what had been done so far was null.
If the day’s proceedings were to be declared null on the basis that one of the accused was not notified of the case, then it’s not clear exactly what the next step will be.
There is the possibility that the whole process that was undertaken on Wednesday would essentially have to be repeated after the Attorney General rectifies the mistake by either correctly notifying DF Advocates or simply withdrawing the charges against it altogether.
22:16: Magistrate Caruana blasts the prosecution for not realising this matter earlier.
“This is a most serious shortcoming on the part of the prosecution,” he says. “Had this been pointed at 11am then everybody could have been home with their families,” he continues.
22:14: Magistrate Caruana asks for the notifications issued to Kevin Deguara, Kenneth Deguara and Jean Carl Farrugia and says that from this documentation it is clear that the trio were notified in their personal capacity, and there is no reference to them representing DF Advocates.
This means that one of those accused in this case – DF Advocates – was not notified for these proceedings.
“Therefore, the case is being deferred with all the legal consequences of this case,” the magistrate says.
The case is therefore going to be deferred to 11 June at 11am so the court can proceed in accordance with the law.
22:09: Court is back in session but there’s another hold up now: the Chamber of Advocates is now stating that the length of time that this sitting has taken is absurd and that by 10pm all lawyers should stop their work and leave the courtroom.
Magistrate Caruana manages to negotiate an extra half an hour. He says that today’s sitting will be finished by 10:35pm, as it wishes to closes this chapter pertaining to the notification of DF Advocates.
21:44: The defence has now requested that the charges are withdrawn on the basis that DF Advocates was not formally notified because it is not a company and therefore could not formally be notified.
Magistrate Caruana has once again suspended the sitting in order to decree on the matter.
21:40: Debono is now continuing to argue the point, and he asks who exactly was notified for DF Advocates since it didn’t even exist as a company.
Magistrate Caruana notes that this is a valid point, and turns to the prosecution. After some sifting in a file, Spiteri tells the magistrate that the entity had been notified because its representatives had been notified.
Debono says that the prosecution is dragging things out “like chewing gum” and notes that the prosecution cannot answer this simple question. He again says that this is all happening because there was a “huge rush” for charges to be issued.
“I think I know why [there was this rush], but I won’t say why,” he says. He continues by making it clear that if the prosecution will insist on a €20 million freezing order against DF Advocates, then its representatives will sue the Maltese state for €20 million damages.
21.31:The Magistrate walks back into the courtroom and the sitting resumes.
A prosecution lawyer, Spiteri, says the charges against DF Advocates will not be dropped.
The procesutor requests the C Number be removed, saying that the number was for DF Corporate Advisory Limited.
21:00: The Magistrate offered the prosecution to suspend the sitting to regulate themselves. "Let's call a spade a spade," he said. Someone then clapped, the magistrate asked who, but nobody admitted to it. The sitting is suspended... again.
20:55: The prosecution is sticking to its guns. "I'm trying to be practical, I'm trying to be fair, it's clear you've made a mistake," Debono says. He insistes that the prosecution made a mistake, and that they must confirm under oath.
The prosecution is saying that it is registered as a civil partnership. He also said that the entity filed application signed by people who are present in the room
20:49: Debono says that either way there is a mistake in the charge sheet, because a company number is erroneously assigned to DF Advocates – something impossible because DF Advocates does not exist as a company.
He further questions how one can present the identity of this entity when it does not exist as a company. “This is the fruit of hurriedness,” Debono says, before going to mention that there is even a request for a freezing order worth €20 million against DF Advocates, which he again says does not exist as a legal person.
He again invites the prosecution to withdraw the charges, he will be “practical” and the matter will stop there.
20:44: The court is back in session.
The prosecution, rather than withdrawing the charges, is asking the court to revoke its decree from a few minutes ago because there are three people here who can answer for DF Advocates.
These are Kevin Deguara, Kenneth Deguara and Jean Carl Farrugia. Refalo points towards legal provisions which cater specifically to law firms to back this up.
20:34: This has been a marathon sitting so far.
Starting at 11am, it has been characterised by legal wrangling on procedures, two separate requests for constitutional references which would have stopped the case in its tracks, a working day’s wait for the accused to actually plead not guilty to the charges against them, and now even more procedural issues.
The passage of time is taking its toll in the balcony: cans of Red Bull are on show, and even the security personnel in the court house outside the courtroom have ordered their dinner from an assortment of fast food establishments presumably in the capital.
Whatsmore: there is no end to this sitting in sight.
The magistrate must still decide whether to accept the prosecution’s requests for freezing orders against four individuals – a matter which, if yesterday’s sitting involving Joseph Muscat is anything to go by, will not be something done in a few minutes.
Likewise it remains to be seen if there are actually any witnesses who are going to testify today. Yesterday’s sitting saw four witnesses: the deputy court registrar, an official from the tax department and two scene of crime police officers.
Either way, the long and short is that we seem to be in for a long night.
20:29: Lawyer Charles Mercieca – who has been quiet for the whole sitting – is now arguing that the case cannot continue against DF Advocates because any charge – even against a company – must have a person associated with it.
He said that if and when a jury is done, a “natural person” needs to be there to answer for the charges, and in the absence of this the charges should be withdrawn.
The prosecution has now requested a five minute break to consider the matter at hand – a request which is granted, and once again the sitting is suspended.
20:25: Magistrate Caruana has returned to the courtroom, and begins his decree.
He says that the examination of DF Advocates should be done without representatives.
Debono now invites the prosecution to consider its position in view of the fact that DF Advocates is not a company recognised under the auspices of the law, and therefore should withdraw the charges.
Refalo in turn declares that at this stage no charges will be withdrawn.
20:06: Magistrate Caruana has now suspended the sitting – again – to deliberate on this matter.
20:05: Lawyer Ezekiel Psaila now speaks as we get to the company DF Advocates, and he asks who the prosecution had indicated to be the representatives of this company.
The prosecution and the magistrate both appear somewhat puzzled by the question.
This appears to be a legalistic debate on whether DF Advocates is actually constituted as a company or not. “DF Advocates is a trade name,” Psaila says.
Refalo begins to argue his side, before Psaila classifies that this isn’t a matter of interpretation because a company is a state of fact – and DF Advocates is a trade name and not a company.
Refalo again tries to make his point: whether it’s a trade name or not, someone needs to answer for it, he says.
Psaila says however that because DF Advocates is a trade name and is not legally defined, then nobody can be summoned to testify on its behalf.
19:59: Ronald Mizzi pleads not guilty, as do Alfred Camilleri and Joseph Rapa.
Kenneth Deguara pleads not guilty, as does Kevin Deguara. Jean Carl Farrugia pleads not guilty as well, and so does Deborah Anne Chappell.
Bradley Gatt is next, and he pleads not guilty as well. Aron Mifsud Bonnici pleads not guilty as well.
James Camenzuli, who gives his profession as an engineer, pleads not guilty. Manuel Castagna and Robert Borg round off the list of people, and they both plead not guilty as well.
19:50: Finally, after almost nine hours of this session, the accused are asked for their pleas.
Chris Fearne pleads not guilty. Edward Scicluna’s plea is briefly interrupted by a faulty microphone. He pleads not guilty as well.
19:48: Refalo replies that everybody knows today that every accused here today was given the proces verbal in question, so they know why they are here today. In this sense, since it’s been said and confirmed by the court that the proces verbal is the report and the accused have this in hand, then the request is “frivolous and vexatious.”
The Magistrate decrees that the proces verbal could not be tabled because the defendants have not been examined and rejects the request for referral.
Tonna Lowell observes the prosecutor’s remark that the accused should know why they are there, and says that he and his clients – Fearne and Scicluna – had read the proces verbal is and they had no idea why they were there.
19:45: Magistrate Caruana asks the accused to stand up so they can make their pleas, and promptly another defence lawyer – this time David Farrugia Sacco, speaking for James Camenzuli – stands up and says that he will request a constitutional reference.
The magistrate sighs and tells the accused to sit down again, and warns that the sitting will take as long as it needs to take even if it means that it will finish in the early hours of the morning.
Farrugia Sacco is arguing that the proces verbal has been indicated as the official report, but this same proces verbal is not within the acts of the case.
The fundamental right to a fair hearing is going to be breached because this document is missing from the acts of the case.
19:39: After some push and shove, Magistrate Caruana allows De Marco to ask which part of the inquiry the inspector had read.
De Marco asks the question, and the inspector replies that he read the 1,200 page proces verbal which includes the magistrate’s conclusions.
Magistrate Caruana now decrees that given that the police inspector has declared under oath that the inquiry is effectively the report on which this case is based and therefore the necessary requisites have now been satisfied.
19:33: Franco Galea runs a question by the magistrate before the witness is brought back in; the prosecution argues that it’s just a rewording of De Marco’s question.
Filletti meanwhile argues that the court cannot proceed to the examination of the defendants without the report.
19:28: The inspector confirms that no report was done by any other police officer.
De Marco now asks the inspector to confirm that he does not know what evidence there was to back up the charges that he had signed because he had read only the proces verbal and he issued the charges based just on that.
The prosecution is trying to block the question the question. Debono points out that the witness must leave while the admissibility of the question is being debated. The magistrate accedes and bids the inspector to go wait outside.
Refalo is saying that the question at hand is “completely adrift” from the reason that the inspector was asked to testify on – which was on whether there was a police report or not.
The atmosphere is getting tetchy: interruptions are now frequent, and the magistrate has threatened to throw someone from the prosecution benches out.
De Marco explains the nature of her question, which is to ascertain whether the inspector had simply read and relied on just the magistrate’s conclusions. The magistrate says he will not permit this question.
19:20: Issuing a decree, the Magistrate says that a police officer should be summoned to testify whether a police report was done or not.
Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg, who is part of the prosecuting team, is summoned to the stand.
The magistrate asks him point-blank whether a police report was done. “No,” the inspector replies.
It goes over to cross-examination, and Debono asks what he understand by a report, to which the inspector replies that for him it is something where he had run the investigation.
“So you signed a charge sheet, but you didn’t investigate the case?,” Debono asks. The inspector replies in the affirmative and says that he relied on the magisterial inquiry.
The inspector says that he read the proces verbal and the magistrate’s conclusions and rested on those.
19:15: “Am I right to understand that there is no police report?” the Magistrate asks the prosecution. “There is the inquiry,” Refalo replies.
Magistrate Caruana verbalises that the prosecution has confirmed that there is no police report and that there is the inquiry its stead.
Debono is incredulous at this state of affairs. “Are we talking about ghosts? An explanation on how the charges and freezing order requests were issued should be given,” he says.
“I’m shocked,” Tonna Lowell says and says that he cannot even refer to the inquiry as a report because it wasn’t prompted by a police report, but by a private denouncement.
A reminder that this magisterial inquiry was opened after a request directly to the courts by the NGO Repubblika.
19:08: Refalo now cites a sentence from a different case to back up his point of view. The magistrate tries to find the sentence in question online, but it appears that the court’s website is not co-operating.
Refalo speeds through reading the sentence himself instead. He argues that the magisterial inquiry is going into the merits of the case.
Filletti says that the sentence cited by Refalo is clear in that the Attorney General in such cases absorbs also the oath on the report – which he says is subject to cross-examination.
18:56: The defence has now made yet another request – the accused are yet to make their pleas, let’s keep in mind.
Filletti asks that the court hears the official police report on the case from a police officer.
Replying, Refalo questions whether the defence lawyers feel like staying here till midnight. “However long is needed,” Franco Debono replies from across the courtroom.
Refalo objects to the request… lawyer Arthur Azzopardi is then told to be quiet by the magistrate – he quips jokingly that it’s the first thing he’s said in the whole sitting.
The prosecution says that it was the magisterial inquiry which was the investigation, and adds that the defence’s request is premature.
De Marco replies that the prosecution must exhibit the report on the oath of the police, and it is clear that they do not have this document in hand. The prosecution’s reticence to say why they charged the accused is because none of them know why the accused are here, she says – precisely because, she continues, neither the police nor the Attorney General did any of their own investigations and simply relied on the inquiring magistrate’s conclusions.
Filletti insists that this is not something which is optional.
18:37: Magistrate Caruana decrees that the law explicitly states the procedure for these cases and what the defendant may do. He says that if the request were to be upheld now, it would stultify proceedings, and therefore rejects.
That means that finally, almost exactly 7 and a half hours after this court session began, we can move on to the pleas of the accused.
He is now explaining the charges to the accused and reminding them that they have a right to silence should they wish. He also explains the implications if they plead guilty, not guilty, or do not enter a plea.
18:31: Magistrate Caruana has returned and court is back in session.
18:07: It’s not clear how long this break will take. There are certainly a few jaded faces in the balcony amongst the journalists following this case, and perhaps there is some frustration down in the courtroom itself: Franco Debono appears to have lashed some criticism to a court official and the CEO of the courts. “As if I’m afraid,” Debono could be heard saying.
18:00: Tonna Lowell counters, and Debono tries to get several words into edgeways, but the Magistrate is insistent that what he is saying has already been said. “I am paying attention, believe it or not,” Magistrate Caruana says.
The sitting - once again - is suspended.
17:56: Refalo replies that the same legal provision that Tonna Lowell referred to specifies that by simply reading out the charge sheet, on the grounds that this is not a testimony, then the prosecuting officials are not witnesses.
“The prosecution summons witnesses before this court,” Refalo says, and he adds that the defence’s request cannot be legally sustained.
17:50: Tonna Lowell is now speaking, and he says that he wants to know how the investigation reached certain conclusions, and therefore would be requesting that the officials of the prosecution testify themselves so that they can answer the questions about the investigations.
Debono associates himself with this request, as does Ezekiel Psaila.
17:43: Silence falls on the courtroom as Magistrate Caruana deliberates on the request.
After a couple of minutes, he decrees that the law stipulates the procedure which gives the start of a case and says that it results that the oath of the charges is an integral part of the start of the case and therefore considers that this oath cannot be interpreted as the oath given to a witness to testify.
He therefore rejects the request.
17:36: The prosecution cites legal articles which state that the Attorney General must ready out the charges, and says that cross-examinations are done after the witness examination because those witnesses are effectively being brought to testify to support the charges.
Refalo argues that they are prosecuting officials and not, in fact, witnesses. He says that this request was made to Magistrate Rachel Montebello – presumably during yesterday’s sitting – and she had decided in line with the prosecution’s request.
The defence isn’t happy: Filletti, Debono and Galea all speak over each other… Filletti is warned for saying that the prosecution is trying to “gag” the defence, while Galea points an accusing finger at the prosecution’s benches.
Filletti says that he disagrees with the prosecution because the charge sheet itself reaches certain conclusions about the accused and Debono also now expresses his disagreement with the prosecution saying that they had failed to cite a law which states that they cannot be cross-examined.
Galea says that what a court decided yesterday is irrelevant to him, and the magistrate today has the right to decide as they deem fit.
17:23: Lawyer Stefano Filletti is the first to speak, on behalf of Ronald Mizzi, Deborah Ann Chappell, and Alfred Camilleri, and he requests the court to concede the faculty to the defence of a cross-examination of the officials who read and confirmed the veracity of the content of the charges which they wrote, prepared, and signed themselves.
He wants them to substantiate what evidence there is for fraud against Mizzi, Camilleri and Joseph Rapa; why they issued an aggravation and not a crime; and how they decided to charge Chappell and also decided that a €40 million freezing order should be issued against her.
“The right to cross-examination is a sacrosanct right of the defence to control what is said by a person under oath on the witness stand,” Filletti said.
Debono associates himself with Filletti’s request, meaning that he is making the same request for his own clients. He is specifically asking where the law specifies that a cross-examination cannot be done, and goes a step further and accuses the court of already having expressed itself on the matter.
Magistrate Caruana replies and says that he is simply encouraging that the lawyers do not repeat themselves.
Franco Galea, speaking on behalf of Bradley Gatt, also associates himself with the request for cross-examination.
17:15: Spiteri has finished reading the charges. The defence immediately wants to make a request.
17:06: While this goes on, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard has made headlines after he criticised the prosecution’s request for the accused in yesterday’s case – which includes Joseph Muscat, who was set to host a press conference after the court sitting – to not be allowed to speak publicly about the case.
Attard said that the prosecution’s request was disproportionate – more so considering the leaks from the inquiry.
It should be noted that Attard – who has backed Prime Minister Robert Abela to the hilt in his criticism and doubt-raising campaign of the inquiring magistrate – is the minister responsible for the Attorney General’s office, which is prosecuting both cases.
The PN’s justice spokesperson Karol Aquilina meanwhile blasted Attard’s “attack” on the prosecutor and said that his behaviour is “unacceptable in a democracy.”
16:54: Attorney General lawyer Rebekah Spiteri is now reading out the charge sheet. It is 12 pages long – half the length of yesterday’s 25-page charge sheet which the prosecution took an hour to read out – so we can anticipate that this will take a good few minutes to get through.
16:53: Debono repeats the crux of his argument: that he cannot prepare a defence against a request for a freezing order without having the evidence in hand.
“Rather than being in limbo, in blindness, on what the prosecution has, we want a constitutional reference,” Debono says.
The magistrate decrees that since the charges have not been read out in open court yet, the proceedings have not begun yet and was therefore rejecting the request for the constitutional reference.
“So at this stage there is no protection of fundamental rights?,” Debono questions. The remark goes unanswered, and the magistrate bids the prosecution to read out the charges.
16:49: The prosecution refers to the article Debono cited from the Constitution, which refers to any legal procedure – and here Refalo points out that it can be debated whether the procedure has even begun if he has not even read out the charge sheet yet.
He argues that the defence’s request is “frivolous and vexatious” because at this stage the procedures have not even started because the charge sheet is yet to be read and so no reference can be made.
Debono on his part questions then whether the last six (painfully slow) hours were not part of the proceedings, to which the Magistrate points out that it had been one of the defence lawyers themselves who had said that all of the submissions they were making were preliminary pleas before the proceedings begin.
16:44: It’s good to note what a Constitutional Reference actually means here: if the court chooses to grant this reference, then it will suspend the case until the constitutional issue is decided – but it’s up to the court, ergo Magistrate Caruana today, to decide whether the matter should be referred.
16:33: For the record, the magistrate said in his decree that because the inquiry in genere is now exhibited in other proceedings – presumably those of yesterday, “The court cannot order the exhibition of this evidence because as a state of fact, it is not in its possession anymore.”
In the meantime, Magistrate Caruana has returned to the courtroom and asked what the position of the defence is.
Debono says that on behalf of his client Kenneth Deguara he will be seeking a constitutional reference on the decision. He says that as soon as the charge sheet is read, a request for his client’s assets to be frozen will be made.
He lambasts recent changes to the laws governing freezing orders, saying that the consensus was amongst lawyers that the law was actually a step backwards, not a step forward.
“Is this justice? That we come here and ask for €14 million to be frozen, and you don’t know what proof there is against you? Is this the state of justice in our country?” Debono says.
Debono is now verbalising his argument to the court.
16:20: And just as we were about to get moving with the reading of the charge sheet, the sitting is suspended for another few minutes at the request of De Marco, who wishes to consult with her client.
Most of the accused are now gaggled around their respective legal teams, deep in discussion.
16:10: In a very brief decree, the magistrate rejects the defence’s request. Immediately, Franco Debono says he will seek a constitutional reference on the matter. He also requests a copy of the full decree. De Marco and Tonna Lowell have joined the request, and Caruana says he will read out the decree in full.
16:07: Magistrate Caruana has returned to the courtroom and the sitting resumes.
15:57: Journalists are back in the courtroom awaiting the arrival of Magistrate Leonard Caruana, which should be any minute.
A reminder that progress thus far has been painfully slow. The charges against those accused today have not even been read out yet, as the magistrate is set to decree on whether the defence has been given all the evidence about their clients or not.
15.32: Restart has been pushed back to 4pm.
14:32: The defence teams formally request that before they are given all of the evidence against their clients – even what is not part of the proces verbal – the charge sheet should not be read out.
And with that, the magistrate suspends the sitting for an hour.
14:29: Galea says that the prosecution has been “sitting on the evidence” and he makes a request wherein if the prosecution is truly sticking to the court’s decree on what it can provide to the defence, it should verbalise whether the only substantial evidence against his client – Bradley Gatt – is a single email mentioned in the proces verbal and dated 26 January 2015.
Refalo replies that the prosecution is not in a position to this at the moment as such a request speaks about the merits of the case.
14:24: Debono is again arguing along a similar line as yesterday’s sitting when it comes to the freezing orders, ergo that the prosecution must substantiate the reasoning behind the figures which they want to be frozen.
The magistrate implores him to conclude, and Debono apologises but says he has an obligation to his conscience to say what he feels he has to say.
He reiterates that when the request for a freezing order is made he wants to be in a position to argue against it.
Debono concludes and the magistrate invites Franco Galea to speak. “Why do you leave us Francos to the end?” Debono jokingly asks the magistrate as he sits down.
14:18: Debono says that the defence is insisting on being given access to the material evidence before the charges are read out is simply a request for the court’s decree to be obeyed. “The spirit of this decree is still not being respected,” Debono says.
He says that for the purpose of contesting the prime facie, “you have to be given adequate time and possibility to contest your defence”, and this is more so the case when it comes to the requests for a freezing order.
This is something, he says, he would argue against and he questions how he can be in a position to do this without the evidence being indicated.
“If the court is going to order that the charges are read out before we have all the evidence in hand then it is a breach of rights,” Debono says.
Here it should be pointed out that four people here face freezing orders: Deborah Anne Chappell (€40 million), Kevin Deguara (€20 million), Kenneth Deguara (€14 million), and Jean Carl Farrugia (€20 million) together with the company DF Advocates (€20 million).
14:13: De Marco argues that the inquiring magistrate herself had referred to testimonies, documentary evidence, devices and so on when reaching her conclusions in the proces verbal and therefore all of that material forms part of the same proces verbal and hence should have been provided.
“Dr Debono, in short,” the magistrate says, perhaps trying to channel his inner Peppi Azzopardi, as Franco Debono stands to speak next.
Debono says that the law speaks of evidence in favour and against a suspect – not an accused – and starts to speak again about the right of a suspect to be spoken to before being charged before the magistrate stops him and asks him to stick to topic.
Debono continues and says that this has an impact on the rule of disclosure, because the prosecution has an obligation to summon a suspect and then give them that disclosure.
When it comes to money laundering, the law places the burden of proof on the accused. Because of this, he questions how the accused can provide this explanation – “and here is the clear breach of rights” – without having been summoned to testify.
“How many more points do you have,” the exasperated magistrate asks.
Debono continues and says that there is no distinction between the proces verbal and the other material evidence which was made in the decree that is currently being debated and in fact that the court itself made no distinction at all.
There would have been a distinction had the court specified what to give the defence, he says.
14:05: Tonna Lowell says that the debate currently ongoing is “useless” and all the court needs to do is to define what a proces verbal is and whether it is what the law says or what the AG’s office believes it is.
Filletti is arguing that the magistrate had included “any material evidence” over and above the inquiry in his decree on 20 May, and that this should have been provided to the defence immaterial of whether it was included in the proces verbal or not.
It is useless for the defence to be given the conclusions which refer to annexed evidence when that same annexed evidence is not provided, Filletti says.
13:51: The magistrate now invites the prosecution to reply.
He addresses the claim that the accused had their rights breached, and says that at no stage did the prosecution breach any of the fundamental rights of the accused and always followed its legal obligations.
On the court’s order for disclosure, Refalo points out that the courts made a distinction between the copy of the inquiring magistrate’s proces verbal and the other material evidence. When that distinction was made, he says, for the AG’s office means that the prosecution should give access to each of the accused to the proces verbal.
Another court also referred that other material may result from a parallel investigation from the police, Refalo says. In this case, the investigation was done in the inquiry and that resulted in the proces verbal. This was given to all of the accused, Refalo continued, and they could reach a conclusion as to why they are being charged.
13:40: De Marco is now speaking on behalf of her client Aron Mifsud Bonnici, and she comments that her client was never even mentioned in the inquiring magistrate’s conclusions.
She points out that because once the charge sheet is read there is a month to contest the prime facie of evidence, therefore the necessary evidence should be provided to the defence before that month starts.
She refers to a human rights case where a court found that giving a defence just two weeks to read and analyse 19,000 pages of a case file was a breach of human rights to back this up.
13:37: It’s Filletti’s turn now, and he is referring to the magisterial inquiry and the 78 boxes of evidence with it – which are not present in the courtroom today like they were yesterday.
The magistrate says this is “more of the same.” Sciriha meanwhile briefly speaks to say that his client James Camenzuli had only been interviewed for a grand total of three minutes.
Ezekiel Psaila, speaking for Manuel Castagna, is now verbalising that his client was not given any indication that he was a suspect or that he has the right to silence when he was interrogated by the inquiring magistrate.
Tonna Lowell now speaks on behalf of his clients, Fearne and Scicluna. He notes that he was not given the full disclosure – he was only given the 1,200 page inquiry but not the testimonies or the appendices – and agrees with Debono in regard that all the evidence is passed on to the defence.
13:27: Debono has a decree in hand from 20 May and says that this ordered that every piece of material evidence against those accused is passed on to the defence.
It appears that this decree has not been obeyed yet, and Debono argues that it must be complied with before the charges are read.
The lawyer says that this is necessary because freezing orders are going to be requested against some of the accused.
He refers to a request from yesterday’s sitting for the prosecution to substantiate their freezing order requests by indicating the specific pieces of evidence that cater to it. That request had been turned down, but Debono warns that he is wary today.
Debono makes a formal request for the prosecution to comply to the court’s decree from 20 May before the charges are read out.
13:16: Debono says that his clients were not given disclosure of the evidence even though a search was done at their offices. Likewise, he says, they were not given a series of rights given to those who are suspected of committing crimes.
He continues by officially informing the court that his clients would be instituting constitutional proceedings to seek remedies for this breach of rights.
In Robert Borg’s case, Debono says that he was asked to testify in the inquiry but was not given a caution that he was a suspect or any other rights that one gets as a suspect, once again in breach of his rights.
He too will be reserving his right to constitutional proceedings. The same can be said of Deborah Ann Chappell.
13:11: Those who were not spoken to were not spoken to so that they were not given disclosure of the material evidence against them, Filletti states. He says that this has persisted till today.
Debono is next to speak, and advises that constitutional proceedings will be opened on this matter. He raises his voice a touch, and Magistrate Caruana asks him why he is shouting, and the lawyer promptly lowers his voice again.
The magistrate is getting evidently frustrated at these incessant interventions. “We have to move forward,” he laments. “The court cannot keep giving time for different lawyers to repeat the same opinion,” he continues.
Debono says that he was still halfway through his previous point – from before Filletti spoke. The magistrate sighs, and Debono continues.
13:05: Filletti says that Ronald Mizzi and Joseph Rapa – who were both Permanent Secretaries – were interrogated without the right for a lawyer or the right to silence despite the fact that they were persons of interest at the time, so much so that they are charged today with fraud.
“Had they been given their rights, and had it been said to them from the disclosure what the alleged suspicion was which up till this day is not clear as the inquiry assigned no incorrect behaviour to them, they would have addressed all the difficulties that investigators may have had at that stage,” Filletti verbalises.
“Worse than that, when the acts were sent to the Attorney General, once again they were not given the opportunity to clarify any question or misinterpretation that there may have been. This is a breach of their fundamental rights,” he said.
In the case of Alfred Camilleri and Deborah Ann Chappell, Filletti said that they were never asked to be spoken to during the investigation.
In Camilleri’s case, Filletti says that the decision to charge him was taken after nobody approached him to clarify any matters there may have been. In Chappell’s case, Filletti says that while she was interrogated as a suspect and was not given the right to a lawyer, right to silence, or disclosure, it was decided that she did not give all the necessary information and had what to hide. This, he said, when as a lawyer she was bound to professional secrecy and could not testify on such matters.
Had she been told she was a suspect, she would not have been bound by this privilege and would have been in a position to answer such questions, he said.
12:59: The defence for Kevin Deguara, Jean Carl Farrugia and Kenneth Deguara states that they cannot receive charges against DF Corporate Services Limited because the company today has been closed.
The prosecution replies that they were being recognised as having been representatives of that company at the time of the alleged crimes.
Magistrate Caruana asks whether we can proceed with reading out the charge sheet. Debono says he wants to make some points on “irregularities”. The Attorney General’s lawyer says that the defence lawyer is “wasting time”, a remark which Debono takes offence to.
The magistrate is imploring Debono to get to the point quickly. Debono is arguing that the accused were not given any disclosure, were not interrogated or spoken to by authorities prior to being charged – something which he calls an “exceptional” situation which he feels deprived them of several rights, and didn’t even know that they were under investigation.
“I doubt I ever had a case where the police did not summon somebody for a statement,” Debono said.
12:45: The defence states that it has had enough time to see the new charge sheet.
Debono makes an observation and says that in one of the charges the prosecution had added something, despite assuring previously that it hadn’t. He says isn’t making any requests, but wanted this to be known. The court says that the change in question does not have any impact on the charges and implored for things to move on.
12:41: Magistrate Caruana returns and court is now back in session.
12:19: Magistrate Caruana invites the defence to decide whether it wants some time to analyse the new charge sheet or not, in view of the fact that it had now been officially substituted. “Nothing more, nothing less,” he says, as Filletti tries to make another point.
The defence makes this request, and the prosecution does not object to it, and the magistrate allows 20 minutes for the defence to leaf through the new charge sheet.
The sitting is therefore suspended.
12:14: Everybody seems to have said their piece. The prosecution now makes a formal request to substitute the first charge sheet from 6 May, to the new charge sheet presented today.
The court now moves to making a decision.
“The court has heard the submissions of the prosecution and of the defence…” the magistrate starts. Tonna Lowell – who has been silent thus far today – stands up to say that he is not part of the defence’s request.
It is clarified that Tonna Lowell – who is representing Fearne and Scicluna – and Gianella De Marco – who is representing Aron Mifsud Bonnici – are not part of this opposition on the new charge sheet.
Caruana considers that the law permits the substitution of an act verbatim – in this case the charge sheet. He continues that it is true that usually charge sheets are registered with the court registrar.
“Naturally this gives an identity in the court’s administrative registry of that particular case being registered,” he says.
He reads out the current case number, and states that what the prosecution is requesting does not constitute the start of a new procedure but signifies the substitution of the charges.
Considering this, the court accepts the prosecution’s request and orders the substitution of the charge sheet, the magistrate concludes. “That’s step one,” he says.
12:04: Debono takes this remark as a cue, now verbalising a remark which states that since the new charge sheet had not been registered with the court registry as is usual practice and because the new document contains changes on the previous one then the accused are going to be notified with the new charges in this sitting.
Filletti wants to say something again, Magistrate Caruana says that he doesn’t want any repetitions. Filletti says that the AG is not saying the truth in saying that the rest of the charge sheet is identical, pointing out a difference in one of the pages.
Refalo is now given time to reply: he says that the court can substitute or change an act as long as the substitution or change does not change the substance of the merits of the case. In this case, the merits remain the same and the charges remain the same, he says.
Franco Galea is now reiterating that it’s up to the prosecution to do what they feel they have to do, but then must face the consequences. “This is a matter of public order if and if procedure is not followed properly then there will be consequences,” he says.
Filletti wants to speak yet again. “No!,” the magistrate tells him. “It’s important,” the lawyer replies. “Everything is important for you,” the magistrate says. Filletti says that the correction which is being made in the charge sheet is changing the context of the charges and therefore the prosecution’s arguments aren’t valid.
11:50: Filletti adds his voice to the chorus of objections and underlines the importance of this document. Sciriha likewise begins to say his piece, noting that even a simple court judgement in a civil case needs to go through the court registry.
A reminder that the charges themselves are yet to even be read out… this could be another long day.
Magistrate Caruana notes that no formal request has been made by the defence lawyers yet. "I enjoy academic debates, but without a request nothing can be done," Caruana says.
11:44: The prosecution says it is presenting the new charge sheet, substituting the previous charge sheet which was presented on 6 May.
Lawyer Franco Galea – who is representing Bradley Gatt – states that the prosecutor is seeking a substitution of the act, rather than a correction of the act, and therefore these new charges need to be formally registered with the court registry as in any other compilation of evidence process. The prosecution cannot expect that its choice has no consequences, he says.
He continues that Malta’s laws don’t tell you what you can do, but rather what you cannot do, and says that the court has its own discretion.
Debono meanwhile backs this call and says this situation is the fruit of “hurriedness.” He says that the prosecution is “not in order” and that if the new charge sheet is going to be registered today then it will be given a different case number – the old charge sheet, since it’s being substituted, therefore does not exist anymore as it is being withdrawn.
11:29: There is some commotion now as Debono continues to argue about the new charge sheet, saying that the defence had not yet been notified.
Magistrate Caruana as a result orders police officers to pick up the charge sheets and notify the defence there and then, something which leaves most of the cast next to Debono up in arms.
Debono is continuing to argue that it’s not right that the charge sheet is given to the lawyers at such short notice. Lawyer Michael Sciriha notes that in 40 years he had never had a police officer come to take his papers, though the Magistrate notes that it was upon his orders.
Debono speaks again, saying that he would like the opportunity to leaf through the new charge sheet himself, saying that he cannot simply rely on the AG’s word on this.
Filletti is now speaking, questioning why if the media knew five days ago that the charges against this company were going to be dropped then why did the prosecution take until today to adjust the charge sheet.
11:18: The prosecution is, like yesterday, being led by Francesco Refalo together with AG lawyers Rebekah Spiteri and Shelby Aquilina and Superintendent Hubert Cini and police inspector Wayne Rodney Borg.
Fearne and Scicluna are being assisted by lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, while Camilleri, Rapa and Mizzi are being assisted by Stefano Filletti.
Franco Debono together with Ezekiel Psaila, Marion Camilleri and Jonathan Thompson are assisting Kenneth Deguara, Kevin Deguara, and Jean Carl Farrugia together with DF Advocates.
Aron Mifsud Bonnici is being assisted by lawyers Gianella De Marco and Charles Mercieca.
11:15: Magistrate Caruana is doing a roll call of the accused and who is representing them. As he gets to the end, mentioning the company DF Corporate Advisory Ltd, Refalo rises to state that a new charge sheet is going to be read out today with no charges against this particular company.
The charges against the company are being dropped after it was mistakenly included in the charges. The company did not exist at the time of the charges against it – between 2013 and 2023, having only starting to operate on 1 January 2024.
Lawyer Franco Debono is arguing on a procedural point – he accepts that the Attorney General’s office had made a mistake and appreciated that the charges were being withdrawn, but reserves the right to take further action on the matter.
Refalo questions on what legal basis Debono is arguing – some murmurs come from the defence benches and Magistrate Caruana warns them tersely: “don’t start” – and points out that the rest of the charge sheet has remained identical.
11:05: Magistrate Caruana has entered the courtroom and is setting some ground rules.
So far, they’re the same as those set by Magistrate Rachel Montebello yesterday: he won’t tolerate people talking over each other and each client’s defence team should assign one lawyer to speak on their behalf.
One of the defence lawyers Gianella De Marco asks how long the case may take – nobody appears to want a repeat of yesterday’s sitting which started at 11:30am and dragged into the night before finishing at 8:30pm.
Magistrate Caruana promises a break at some point, but says that the duration will depend on those present.
11:00: Journalists meanwhile have been allowed into the courtroom – courtroom 22, the biggest inside the law courts.
We await the arrival of Magistrate Leonard Caruana for this sitting to start.
While the accused in today’s case may be different to yesterday’s, the cast is much the same: Attorney General lawyer Francesco Refalo leads the prosecution once again, and the defence benches are filled with familiar faces from yesterday as well.
Photo: NET News
10.45: Former Deputy Prime Minister and Health Minister Chris Fearne walks in, and tells journalists that he will be defending his credibility and integrity.
10.20: Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna is the first to walk into the court building. In a brief comment in reply to questions about his non-resignation, he said there is a difference between a government minister and a central bank governor.
10.10. The sitting is scheduled to start at 11am today. The police confirmed in a statement that several individuals will be arraigned in court, on lesser charges, in connection with the Vitals deal.
9.40am: The stalls selling gadgets are back on the square in their usual place. They did not set up shop on Tuesday.
9.30am: It's a much quieter scene today, in front of the law courts. The people who turned up in support of former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat yesterday are nowhere to be seen. Former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne and Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna will not have to deal with the crowds to enter the courtroom today.