A court has rejected a request by former Steward Healthcare CEO Ralph De La Torre to suspend criminal proceedings against him in Malta while related proceedings unfold in the United States, ruling that his claims of potential prejudice were speculative and failed to meet the strict legal threshold for an interim measure.

De La Torre had asked the constitutional court to temporarily freeze criminal proceedings before the Court of Magistrates until a separate constitutional case challenging those proceedings is decided. That constitutional case remains pending. The interim request, filed in October, sought urgent relief to halt the Maltese case in the meantime.

De La Torre argued that he is under scrutiny in the United States for the alleged misappropriation of Steward Healthcare funds and had been summoned to testify in proceedings connected to a US Senate investigation. He also stated that he had initiated proceedings before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

According to the defence, De La Torre was being placed in an unfair position: any testimony he might give in Washington could potentially be used against him in Malta, where authorities have initiated criminal proceedings linked to the hospitals privatisation deal. That deal began under Vitals Global Healthcare and was later taken over by Steward Healthcare.

In his constitutional case, De La Torre claimed that his right to a fair trial had been, or was likely to be, breached because he was allegedly being "forced" to testify abroad while facing parallel criminal proceedings in Malta. He also challenged the evidentiary basis of the Maltese case, which relies in part on a forensic report prepared by expert Jeremy Harbinson or employees of Harbinson Forensics Ltd. De La Torre argued that the report was flawed, that there were serious doubts about how it was drawn up, and that its authors were not expected to testify to confirm its contents. As a result, he claimed the report could never establish a "reasonable prospect of conviction".

On that basis, he requested that the constitutional court either stop criminal action against him entirely or, at minimum, suspend proceedings until the US court case and Senate proceedings are concluded.

The Attorney General opposed the interim request, arguing that the legal requirements for such a measure were not satisfied. The State maintained that De La Torre had ordinary procedural remedies available before the criminal court itself, including the right to request a stay of proceedings and to contest the admissibility of any expert evidence or foreign testimony.

The State also emphasised that the case was still at an early stage and that it was too soon to allege a breach of the right to a fair trial, which must be assessed in the context of the proceedings as a whole rather than on hypothetical future developments. There was also, the State argued, no imminent threat to De La Torre's "vital interests", a key requirement for the granting of interim measures.

In its decision, the court reviewed Maltese and Strasbourg jurisprudence on interim measures, stressing that they are reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm and where maintaining the status quo is necessary to ensure an effective remedy later. Such measures, the court said, cannot be granted lightly or on the basis of uncertain future scenarios.

Applying these principles, the court found that De La Torre's claims remained speculative. At the time of the application, proceedings before the US District Court were still pending, and it was not even clear whether De La Torre would ultimately be required to testify before the US Senate. Since no Senate testimony had been given and no such evidence had been introduced in the Maltese criminal case, the court said it was impossible to establish, even on a prima facie basis, that his right to a fair hearing or his privilege against self-incrimination was being violated.

The court added that even if testimony were given abroad, there was no certainty it would be admitted in Malta, and De La Torre would retain the right to challenge its admissibility. It also noted that if prosecutors intended to rely on such testimony, this could be addressed through the normal course of proceedings without halting the case.

Concluding that the legal criteria for an interim measure were not met, the court dismissed the request and ordered De La Torre to bear the costs. Judge Audrey Demicoli presided.