AG wants judge's recusal after faux pas in Daniel Meli case

The Attorney General has filed an application requesting the recusal of Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, who is presiding the appeal filed by the AG in the extradition proceedings of suspected hacker Daniel Joe Meli.

The application was made hours before the judge was due to deliver judgement but follows an unusual development last week when the judge erroneously started reading out the judgement before hearing the final arguments of the AG and defence.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Grixti informed the parties that he was suspending proceedings until the recusal request was decided. 

The defence highlighted that the AG did not cite any articles of the law in its application.

Lawyer Franco Debono, who is assisting Meli, insisted that extradition proceedings are special in nature and should take place swiftly. He argued that at the sitting last week there was a “misconception” on whether the sitting was left for judgement or not, and the court then confirmed it was for submissions and heard the parties make their closing arguments.

“If they had an issue with the judge they should have raised it then, not now,” Debono argued, adding that “the AG did well to draw the court’s attention” but at the same time made submissions ahead of the judgement.

He insisted that there were no legal grounds to request a recusal, insisting that Meli “has been through a lot of complications” already.

AG lawyer Sean Xerri De Caro stressed that “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”

He quoted the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure when a presiding judge may be challenged from presiding a sitting when “he had given advice, pleaded or written on the cause or on any other matter connected therewith or dependant thereon”. He also referred to case law and jurisprudence on such cases.

The court intervened and demanded that the AG lawyer explain himself better.

“The court began reading out the judgment. The judgement was ready whether it was read out in full or not. It was already written up,” Xerri De Caro said. He also referred to the Constitution and the right to a fair trial.

Debono insisted that the AG was “misquoting” the law and making an effort to find some legal grounds for recusal.

“If the court upholds the AG’s application, the whole proceedings will have to start over from scratch,” Debono warned. He argued that the provision cited by the AG did not apply in this case, since in any case the judge would have had to serve previously as a lawyer in those proceedings.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi dictated a note saying that the defence was objecting to the AG’s request since it had no legal basis.

AG lawyer Daphne Baldacchino insisted that the principle of a fair trial applied to both parties. “If anything the judgement should have been written up after the parties made their final arguments,” she said.

Debono closed by saying that the judgement was written when the judge decided and the parties could not dictate when it was written.

The case was adjourned to Wednesday morning for the court to rule on the AG’s request.

Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti presided over the Court of Criminal Appeal. AG lawyers Sean Xerri De Caro, Daphne Baldacchino and Maria Zerafa Le-Gros appeared as the Central Authority. Lawyers Franco Debono, Arthur Azzopardi, and Lennox Vella appeared for Meli.