An alleged drug smuggler is asking a court to remove from case evidence a “defective” compact disc containing telephone intercepts deemed crucial to the prosecution’s case.
Joseph Lebrun of Marsascala, now 64, has been at the centre of lengthy criminal proceedings and constitutional cases since being targeted by charges allegedly linking him to a drug-trafficking conspiracy back in 2005.
Police claim that Lebrun and two other suspects were involved in a seaborne operation designed to import 7kg of heroin.
The prosecution’s case rested heavily upon a CD of intercepted telephone calls between certain people, including the accused, suspected of being linked to the drug operation.
That CD, together with the transcripts of its contents, were presented in evidence during the compilation of evidence against Lebrun.
When testifying in 2005, superintendent Neil Harrison explained how he had been tasked by the Security Service director to transcribe those intercepted calls.
Lawyer Martin Bajada, was subsequently appointed as court expert to determine the localisation of those calls and to conduct a comparative voice analysis exercise which would confirm Lebrun’s involvement or otherwise.
That expert later reported that the compact disc handed over to him for that purpose, was “defective” and that it was not a “first generation copy” but contained “recreated folders.”
After listening to the recordings and reading through the relative transcripts, Bajada observed that the transcripts did not cover all the speech or failed to do so in chronological order.
Moreover, the comparative analysis returned a negative match, the court was informed.
In light of such evidence, Lebrun’s lawyers argued that there was no “factual link” between those intercepts and the accused whose voice was not identified in any of those intercepted calls.
Moreover, with reference to the task handled by Harrison, Lebrun’s lawyers argued that a court expert could never be a police officer, since such a person could not be considered an independent expert.
The situation was even more alarming in this case since Harrison had not been appointed by the court but directly by the Security Service, pointed out the lawyers in their application filed before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
This was not merely “an academic matter,” but one that would breach Lebrun’s right to a fair hearing if that CD and the related transcripts were to be allowed to stand in evidence against him.
Lebrun was thus calling upon the court to issue all orders and adequate measures accordingly.
Criminal proceedings against Lebrun had collapsed in 2005 when the magistrates’ court held that there was insufficient prima facie evidence to stand trial.
But Lebrun was re-arrested and faced charges after legislative amendments permitted that.
He was placed under a bill of indictment in 2014 and pre-trial pleas were also wrapped up but his trial was put off indefinitely (sine die) pending ongoing constitutional proceedings.
Lawyers Jose’ Herrera, Franco Debono and David Camilleri signed the application which was filed against the Attorney General and the State Advocate.