Court asked to return phone tapping warrants

The court registrar was yesterday formally asked to return within 10 days a number of warrants exhibited on Wednesday by the head of the security service authorising telephone tapping in connection with a police drug busting operation.

The demand was made by the Attorney General who also called on the head of the security service not to testify on the existence or otherwise of the warrants in question and not to give such warrants or copies thereof to anybody except the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act.

The warrants at issue were exhibited in the compilation of 19 persons charged with conspiring to deal in drugs here and in Italy last May.

In a judicial letter, Attorney General Anthony Borg Barthet referred to article 18 of the Security Service Act which lays down that:

"(1) In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case) tends to suggest:

"a) that an offence under sections 15 or 16 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

"(b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those persons;

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to preclude the disclosure in evidence of any information which may be disclosed in accordance with or under any other provision of this Act.

"(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are:

"a) any member of the security service;

"(b) any public officer..."

Dr Borg Barthet said the Magistrates' Court had ordered that warrants in connection with accused before it should be exhibited. Although the head of the security service insisted he believed such documents should not be exhibited, he had done so out of respect towards the court.

The Attorney General said both the Magistrates' Court's ruling and the decision by the security service head to exhibit the warrants violated article 18 of the Security Service Act, were against public order and the public interest and were illegal.

He argued the court had no right to make such an order and if it felt that the provisions of the Security Service Act violated any rights it should have referred the matter to the First Hall Civil Court for a pronouncement.