Live Blog: Joseph Muscat Back In Court As Compilation Of Evidence In VGH Inquiry Case Resumes

Latest updates from court (refresh this page to read the latest)

2:54pm: Next sitting is on 19th June at 11am. There will be two more after that: 20th at 10:30am and 25th at 10am.

2:47pm: The court is now asking what witnesses are being requested to testify in the next sitting before we wrap up for the day.

2:45pm: The defence is requesting to question members of the prosecution in the next sitting. The prosecution has objected to the last request because, Refalo says, it is not the Attorney General’s role to investigate. Franco Debono notes that one needs to keep in mind that the role of the Attorney General has changed and today has the power to order investigations.

2:40pm: The inspector keeps being pushed about investigations, and he keeps replying that he didn’t investigate himself. He says the magistrate did, and that there was no police investigation after the inquiry was wrapped.

Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell questioned it all, saying from what he read, “that’s not the case”.

2:37pm: NexiaBT, MTrace Ltd also had charges issued to them without investigating, the inspector confirms.

As a response, Jason Grima says he wants to summon former inspector Anthony Scerri to testify. His request is registered.

2:34pm: We’re nearing the end… and the magistrate is getting nervous, reminding the defence that today’s session will stop at 3pm.

“Please don’t make useless and repetitive questions out of respect to colleagues,” she says.

2:32pm: The final lawyer to question the witness is Stephen Tonna Lowell who is appearing for Nexia BT, Brian Tonna and Karl Cini. The inspector again reiterates that he did not take part in any investigations.

2:30pm: Franco Debono now asks the inspector to confirm where Scaccia Grill was asked to give its side of the story. The inspector confirms it wasn’t. Debono has no further questions.

2:24pm: The inspector notes that the inquiry did not specify the need for further investigations by the police and simply recommended charges. “So you abdicated on your responsibility to investigate,” Galea asks before being admonished by the magistrate for putting words in the witnesses’ mouth. The questioning continues but the magistrate has had enough. “He relied on the proces-verbale, that much is clear!”

2:19pm: Galea now asks the inspector about the appendices to the inquiry and how they were received. The magistrate insists the question is irrelevant and doesn’t allow it.

2:17pm: Galea asks the inspector whether he is aware of a request made by Muscat to give information to the inquiry. He says that all he knows is that the magistrate requested that Muscat testify on 18th April. Galea asks whether he was aware that Muscat couldn’t do so because he had requested a Constitutional reference regarding the inquiring magistrate.

The inspector confirms that Muscat’s request was not accepted and the decision had once again been taken by the prosecution. “It is because we did not investigate. Had we investigated I would have felt it necessary, even to confirm there was something I missed. I can’t ask someone questions about an investigation I did not carry out”

2:12pm: Galea again asks the inspector whether he had read all the appendices. The inspector again says that he had read through them, but stops short of saying he read the full appendices.

2:11pm: The inspector is asked whether he had consulted with anyone before issuing the charges and who specifically he had consulted with. The inspector tells the court he had discussed the matter with the Attorney General’s lawyers. He says it was a collective decision by the prosecution.

2:04pm: Vince Galea, appearing for Muscat, asks for names. The inspector says it was himself, superintendent Hubert Cini, Assistant Commissioner Fabian Fleri and the police commissioner Angelo Gafa.

2:02pm: Dalli asks the inspector who had taken the decision not to investigate in parallel. The inspector says he had inherited the case and kept with the same procedure. Dalli now asks who had decided for the no investigation to be carried out after the conclusion of the inquiry. The inspector says this was decided by the Police Corps. Pressed further, he says it was taken by him and superiors.

2:00pm: Veronique Dalli now questions the witness. She asks him to confirm that his claims also applied to Taomac, the company she is defending. Dalli notes that he mentioned the appendices to the inquiry. She says that there was a second company linked with the company she was defending which was part of a similar business plan. She notes that the other company was listed in the appendix but no charges were issued against it.

Dalli now asks the inspector about the other company. The magistrate insists that the other company is not relevant to the investigation and does not permit the question. “Do not answer,” she tells the inspector.

1:56pm: Mark Vassallo now questions the witness. He is appearing for Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi. He asks the inspector how many other inquiries he was involved in. The inspector says it was his first.

Vassallo asks the witness what the normal procedure is but the magistrate interjects and tells the lawyer that he can’t answer if it was his first inquiry. She advises the witness not to answer Vassallo’s question about what the standard procedure was. “I did not investigate because we relied on the inquiry,” replied the inspector yet again.

1:51pm: The inspector’s reply is, again, that the police had rested on the inquiry’s conclusions.

1:50pm: De Marco now asks when the inspector had read the appendices. The magistrate and prosecution object to the questions. Tempers are flaring now and De Marco is asked by the magistrate to lower her voice.

1:49pm: “But even if you relied on the appendices, what in them caused you to issue the charges against Mario Gatt?” De Marco asks. The inspector again says that he had relied on the magistrate’s findings. “So just say that you relied on the conclusions, and don’t mention the appendices!”

The magistrate warns De Marco about asking direct questions. De Marco pushes back and sparks fly between the lawyer and the magistrate. She adds that she will not allow any questions about the freezing orders issued against the accused as this was handled in the last sitting.

1:45pm: She continues her questioning. This time she asks the inspector specifically about the appendix and the funds that are alleged to have been passed on to her client Mario Gatt. “Where they passed on in cash or by transfer?” Again he insists that he had not done any investigative work.

1:43pm: Gianella De Marco is next to question the witness. She asks him to specify whether he had read the conclusions and the appendix or the whole proces-verbale. He said he had read the list of witnesses but had not gone into what they had said.

She asks what he read in relation to her client Mario Gatt in the appendix. Borg says he does not remember.

The magistrate asks the inspector to confirm whether he had been involved in drawing up the charges. He says he was.

“So you just copied and pasted the charges like a parrot?” De Marco asks. The inspector continues to say he relied on the inquiring magistrate.

1:35pm: “The law is telling us that the Police Commissioner must review the contents and then discuss any matters which aren’t clear with the Attorney General,” Debono says. The inspector confirms this did not happen,

1:34pm: The inspector clarifies that the only involvement he had with the inquiry was transferring it from the magistrate to the Attorney General. Debono continues, noting that the law gave the police power to ask for clarification about any part of the inquiry after it has been concluded and passed on to the police.

1:32pm: Debono continues to hound the witness about the police’s involvement and investigations in relation to Sciacca Grill. “When you testified under oath about the charges, on the basis of what proof did you take that oath?” Debono asks. The inspector says he did so on the basis of the inquiry report. Debono again asks him what evidence he has seen in relation to Sciacca Grill. The inspector replies that he has seen no evidence.

1:30pm: Debono asks whether the police had investigated any reasonable excuse that the accused could have given in relation to the charge of money laundering. Again, he responds that no investigations were carried out.

1:29pm: Filletti finally asks whether he had written the charges out himself. He said he had, on the basis of what the magistrate had stated in her report.

Franco Debono now asks him whether he could tell the court what had led him to sign off on the charges against Scaccia Grill. He again says that he had not carried out any investigations

1:28pm: The inspector is asked how long between him receiving the inquiry and signing off on it. He says he isn’t sure but agrees that it was likely a few days.

1:26pm: Filletti asks him whether he had done anything to confirm the experts’ conclusions with respect to Adrian Hillman. He says he hadn’t.
Filletti asks whether he had spoken to Hillman at any point. He again replies in the negative.

1:25pm: The inspector confirms that he had relied solely on the magistrate’s conclusions and had not seen any of the contents of the 78 boxes.

1:25pm: “When you say you rested on the inquiry, what specifically did you rely on?” Fillettti asks. He adds whether he had relied on, whether it was the conclusions, the testimony etc..

1:24pm: Filletti asks him whether he was the one that signed the report. He confirms that he was. He is asked what role he has, he says he is assigned to the financial crimes section.

Filletti asks him what investigations he carried out in relation to the case. He said he carried out no investigations. “Who investigated on the part of the police?” He replies that nobody did and that they rested on the inquiry.

1:22pm: Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg takes the stand.

1:21pm: The court says it is rejecting the request, saying that the fact that the charges were read out by the prosecution satisfied the necessary legal prerequisites. The magistrate does accept the defence’s second request to have a police officer to be called to testify.

1:18pm: The prosecution is objecting to the request by the defence. He refers to a court case which found that the article of the law being referred to by Debono is not relevant to the stage of proceedings.

Lawyer Charles Mercieca objects, arguing the opposite. “It is in fact only during this stage of the proceedings that the the provision of the law can be invoked”

1:14pm: The magistrate asks who is also associating themselves with Filletti. All lawyers say they are with the exception of Clarence John Conger-Thompson.

1:12pm: Debono continues, this time citing Article 390(2). He says that in the eventuality that Filletti’s request is rejected, he will be making a request according to this part of the law. “We are requesting that one of the witnesses brought up by the defence comes up to testify so we can ask questions. We are in the second day of these proceedings and still don’t know why our client is being charged.”

1:09pm: Lawyer Franco Debono will make another request. The magistrate again pushes back, insisting she has already given the lawyers an opportunity to do so. Debono says that if he is not allowed to make a request he won’t make it.

The magistrate says she will allow it, but insists this will be last request she accepts.

1:07pm: He continues to insist that this part of the law must be satisfied and that the defence has a right, obligation, even to cross-examine whoever signed off on the charges.

1:03pm: The law, he says, makes it clear that in addition to the reading of the charges, the police must also confirm their investigation under oath.

Filletti points out that the law still requires investigations to be carried out by the police. The magisterial inquiry is intended to preserve evidence.

1:02pm: Filletti makes a request to court to ask investigative officials to testify about the investigation as outlined in Article 390 (1) of the criminal code. The magistrate is furious because she says she already ordered that all requests be made earlier. Filletti responds that he did know that he would need to make a request on such a basic part of the law.

1:00pm: Filletti asks the prosecution to clarify at which point in the proceedings police officials will be asked to testify about their investigations. Refalo responds and says the charges had already been read out under oath.

12:57pm: The magistrate adds that she also cannot accept the request because legally all experts that have been appointed to work on an inquiry must be called as witnesses in the subsequent case.

12:56pm: The court observes that this isn’t the point for the appointment of experts to be objected to. The magistrate says she will accept the nomination of the experts so they can provide their evidence to the court. At this point, she says, what will be decided is whether or not the evidence can be accepted. She adds that at this point, it’s the court’s job to collect all of the evidence.

12:54pm: The magistrate is reading a list of decrees through which the experts were appointed to work on the inquiry.

12:53pm: Vincent Galea’s phone rings while the magistrate is reading her decree. She warns him that he is disrespecting the court. He apologises and the magistrate continues reading her decree.

12:51pm: Magistrate Rachel Montebello is back in the court room and will now give her decree.

12:27pm: We’re still waiting for the magistrate to return, but lawyers appear to be having a meeting of sorts in the courtroom. All the lawyers are huddled around Franco Debono and discussing something, presumably their views on whether or not the magistrate intends to accept their request and what course of action they are to take if she doesn’t.

11:57am: Nobody seems to have any further requests at this stage. The sitting is suspended for approximately half an hour for the magistrate to decree on the matter of the court experts.

11:56am: The magistrate now asks if there are any other requests. “I am going to decree on this matter but if there are any other requests, tell me now. I’m not going to spend a day going in and out of my chambers to decree.”

11:55am: Franco Debono now addresses the court and says he is happy that the other legal teams have agreed with his request and have decided to join it. The magistrate doesn’t really see the point of his latest remarks and makes her opinion clear.

11:52am: She provides the court with a copy of the statements. The court asks Gatt’s defence whether they would like to cross-examine the witness. They ask to see the statement but appear to have no questions for the witness who now leaves the stand.

11:51am: Sarah Ramsey is the first witness. She is here on behalf of Bank of Valletta to submit a banks statement related to Mario Victor Gatt.

11:49am: With that out of the way, the first witness of the day will now take the stand.

11:47am: Filletti responds and clarifies that he is attacking the appointment of the experts and not their findings. He says the court cannot accept the appointment of an expert to tell it what is or isn’t a criminal act.

He reads out a decree appointing one of the experts which states that they had been appointed to “make all considerations required regarding and illegalities committed”.

“The court doesn’t need this help,” Filletti said. “They are making gratuitous statements and should never have been appointed to comment on illegal activities. They should have been appointed to produce information only”

11:43am: The prosecution objects to the defence’s request. He says the experts were appointed according to the Criminal Code. AG lawyer Francesco Refalo adds that it was ultimately the magistrate that issued the charges.

11:41am: A number of other lawyers tell the court they will also be joining Filletti’s request.

11:40am: Filletti says he is objecting to the experts’ appointment because they do not have the required knowledge of Maltese law for them to have been appointed to the do the work they were appointed to do.

With respect to his client, Adrian Hillmann, he says that the accused has only been charged because of the experts’ interpretation of the Maltese Criminal Code which can only happen by a court. He again stresses that experts are to be appointed to assist the court in matters which it does not have the competence for. Interpreting Malta’s laws is not one of them.

11:35am: The court asks how this is related to Filletti’s request. Debono explains that he would need to have access to the full inquiry in order to make a stronger case regarding the appointment of these experts.

11:33am: Franco Debono now tells the court that his client will be contesting whether there is prima facie evidence against him, but in order to do so he would need to see access to the full inquiry, which he still has not been given.

He said that the court has started the process of providing the legal teams but this is taking time.

11:28am: Filletti continues that he is objecting to all the financial and technical analysis that were appointed as experts.

11:27am: Franco Debono interjects, but he’s shut down by the magistrate who insists he be quiet until Filletti has completed his request. She will not let the sitting degenerate into a shouting contest, she says.

11:25am: Before we start, Lawyer Stefano Filletti – who is appearing for Adrian Hillmann – recalls that in the last sitting, many of the lawyers declared their intention to oppose the appointment of the experts that worked on the inquiry from the case.

Filetti argues that the appointment of experts is intended for matters that the court is unable to do itself. “To appoint an expert to tell you whether a crime has been committed according to the criminal code is not acceptable,” the lawyer explains.

11:22am: The magistrate is reading through the list of accused to make sure everyone and their lawyers are present.

Everyone is accounted for and we can proceed. The magistrate reminds lawyers that they are to speak one at a time and avoid repeating.

“Today we are going to be done by 3pm, no matter what,” the magistrate warns.

11:20am: Three knocks on the door and the magistrate emerges from her chambers. The sitting can now begin.

11:08am: The courtroom has been opened and everyone has taken their place. All that remains now is the arrival of the magistrate.

10:46am: Lawyers, accused and journalists are all outside court, mingling and waiting for the courtroom to be opened so we can take our seats.

10:40am: Joseph Muscat has arrived, and while the crowd was definitely much much smaller, the former prime minister still received a round of applause by the people who happened to be in Valletta this morning, with some shouting “Courage!” at him.

10:27am: Inside court, there’s still quite a heavy presence, but definitely not as much as last time. Today definitely looks more like a normal day in court.

10:17am: The atmosphere in Valletta this morning is extremely different to that of two weeks ago. Some police officers can still be spotted outside the court, but there’s definitely not the same number of fervent supporters singing and waiting for Joseph Muscat to arrive.