Issues of disclosure and evidentiary procedure took centre stage in the Vitals proceedings, as defence and prosecution locked horns over a document transmitted through international police channels concerning the whereabouts of Jeremy Harbinson.

Tensions rose in the courtroom as lawyers debated whether the information, described as "police-to-police" intelligence received from Irish authorities, should be immediately disclosed or formally requested, a process that could further delay proceedings.

The court was told that the document in question is already in the possession of the Maltese police. However, the prosecution insisted that, for the information to be admissible in court, it must be obtained through formal mutual legal assistance procedures.

Defence lawyers strongly objected, arguing that the prosecution was unnecessarily prolonging the case. They insisted that the document should be exhibited without resorting to additional procedural steps.

The defence stressed that fundamental rights and the principle of equality of arms were at stake, arguing that the defence was being denied access to material already in the hands of the authorities.

They requested the court to order the prosecution to confirm whether it possesses the document and to exhibit it immediately.

They further argued that the document does not qualify as privileged under the law and should therefore be disclosed prior to the issuance of any rogatory request.

One defence lawyer described the proposed process as a "waste of time" that would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The prosecution rejected these claims, maintaining that it would be failing in its duty if it did not seek the information through proper legal channels.

It explained that the information in question, as testified by Inspector Robinson Mifsud, who forms part of the Interpol and Europol unit within the police force, could not be formally produced at this stage due to its nature.

The prosecution noted that the inspector had already received a reply through Interpol but said the information could not be exhibited directly, prompting the need for a formal request.

It also questioned why the defence was resisting the rogatory process, given that it would ensure that all parties have access to the same information.

The prosecution also expressed frustration at the continued inability to locate Harbinson.

Magistrate Lara Lanfranco emphasised that the issue was not one of unwillingness by the prosecution to produce such documents but rather whether there is the need for a request to obtain information at this stage.

She noted that the only question before the court was whether a rogatory request was necessary, acknowledging that such a step would inevitably prolong proceedings.

At the same time, the court remarked that it would have been far more concerning had no formal steps been taken to secure admissible evidence, describing the process as necessary in light of the circumstances.

Later on in the sitting, lawyer Martin Bajada presented several hard drives containing over 20 million files.

The case continues on 23 April.