Civil Court to view tape of PM's news conference

The Civil Court yesterday convened to hear the claim of a breach of human rights referred by the Magistrates' Court in the case against two judges charged with bribery and agreed to start with a viewing of a tape of the prime minister's news conference in open court next Monday.

The matter was referred by Magistrate Tonio Micallef Trigona after it was raised by lawyers for former chief justice Noel Arrigo, 52, of Siggiewi, and Judge Patrick Vella, 58, of San Pawl tat-Targa, who are pleading not guilty to two counts of bribery and one of revealing official secrets in relation to a sentence handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeal against Mario Camilleri on July 5.

The two judges are claiming that the prime minister made statements asserting their guilt before they were tried by a court and had, at best, clouded their constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Magistrate Micallef Trigona ruled that the judges' complaint in relation to the news conference given by the prime minister on August 1 could not be termed frivolous and vexatious and merited examination by the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

He however dismissed a second complaint against the media, remarking only that the right to freedom of expression was sanctioned as a fundamental human right in the constitution.

Mr Justice Gino Camilleri yesterday put the case off to Monday for the viewing of the tape after taking note of written arguments filed by the attorney general and the police commissioner over the constitutional issue.

Verbal submissions have been tentatively scheduled for a date following the viewing in open court.

Meanwhile, the attorney general and the police commissioner are sticking to the argument they originally made before the Magistrates' Court, that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and untimely.

In written submissions filed in the Civil Court, they argued that one could hardly conceive a magistrate being influenced in his decision by what the prime minister might have said at a news conference.

They explained that the Magistrates' Court's function at this stage was simply to compile evidence and decide whether there were enough reasons, prima facie, for indictment.

After that, it was not yet clear whether the case was going to be referred back to the Magistrates' Court for a decision on the merits or whether a bill of indictment would be filed in the Criminal Court, after which the defendants could choose a trial by jury or without.

In any case, a judge would preside over the court and, in the case of a trial by jury, jurors would be properly directed as to what they could take into consideration before reaching a verdict.

And even if any mistakes were committed by a jury, the Court of Criminal Appeal would have the power to make amends for any mistakes, the attorney general and the police commissioner argued.

They also put to the court their defence of the prime minister's statements, saying that the burden of proof was not placed on the defendants.

"...neither can it be said that [the news conference] can in any way exert any influence on the judge or a jury, properly directed ..."

They added that the prime minister had in fact closed his speech by inviting the public to await the result of the investigation and had only called a news conference to explain why the arrest of two judges, among them the then chief justice, had been necessary and to put the public's mind at rest that it had not been abusive.

They also put forward the argument that the proceedings were to be examined in their entirety in the context of a claim of a breach of human rights and cited a 2000 European Court of Human Rights judgment, Daktaras v. Lithuania to support their argument:

"Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made."

Dr George Abela yesterday also requested the Civil Court to direct the Magistrates' Court to stay proceedings until it gives a ruling on the constitutional reference.

But Mr Justice Camilleri said the proceedings were separate and each did not depend on the other.

Dr Abela said he would not insist on the request if the court felt that way.

The case continues.

Dr Joseph Giglio and Dr George Abela are representing Judge Arrigo while Dr Toni Abela, Dr Michael Sciriha and Dr George Cutajar are representing Judge Vella.

Attorney General Anthony Borg Barthet is also representing the police commissioner.