The courts have yet to decide about the admissibility of a request by Melvin Theuma’s lawyers to the police to hand over documentary evidence related to the murder case against Yorgen Fenech.
When the challenge proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Theuma’s lawyers made their case for that request, pointing out that when they had first requested a copy of Fenech’s own criminal complaint against Theuma at the first hearing in January, the prosecution did not object.
In fact, the inspector had handed over a copy of the complaint, said lawyer Kathleen Calleja Grima who added that she had also collected a CD with a soft copy of that document from the Valletta police station.
“So you filed the challenge without having the criminal complaint in hand and then proceeded once you got a copy,” asked Magistrate Nadine Lia, inviting the parties to make submissions on the admissibility or otherwise of the additional requested documentation.
That evidence consisted mainly of voice recordings, messages on Signal, and Fenech’s own request for a presidential pardon, as well as statements released by the businessman who is currently awaiting trial over his alleged complicity in the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Theuma’s lawyers had reacted when Fenech filed challenge proceedings calling upon the police commissioner to prosecute Theuma for perjury.
That challenge was deemed as a manoeuvre to intimidate the middleman, who was expected to testify as the prosecution’s star witness at the businessman’s trial, the court was told.
Theuma’s lawyers had got to know of Fenech’s challenge through media reports and had reacted, explained Calleja Grima, pointing out that in their own challenge application they had included “a disclaimer” reserving the right to take all the necessary steps and opportune measures once they got details of Fenech’s allegations.
“It’s the party making the challenge who must put forward evidence,” rebutted Superintendent Frank Anthony Tabone, who stepped in to represent the police commissioner at Tuesday’s hearing.
Moreover, these were not compilation proceedings but the court’s task was only to determine whether the police commissioner had enough evidence to prosecute Fenech, went on Tabone.
Fenech’s police statements being requested by Theuma’s lawyers formed part of the records of separate proceedings, the officer pointed out.
“If you don’t have a copy of the voice recordings or Signal messages, how can you base your claim on them?” asked the court.
The original recordings belonged to Theuma but his lawyers had only been given a copy of some of them, explained Calleja Grima.
Other evidence was either in the public domain or had reached Theuma’s lawyers through media reports.
As the animated hearing drew to an end the court stated that a decree on Theuma’s request for evidence would be delivered in chambers.
“The defendant here is the police commissioner. Did he take steps? That is where it stops. The task of this court is to evaluate the work of the police commissioner not what Yorgen Fenech did,” the magistrate pointed out.
The case continues in June.
Lawyers Kathleen Calleja Grima and Matthew Brincat are assisting Theuma.