Court dismisses Vincent Muscat’s rights claim over prison fight case

A court has dismissed a breach of rights claim by convicted hitman Vincent Muscat, better known as il-Koħħu, ruling it was filed at the wrong stage.

Muscat is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for his role in the 2017 murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, following a plea bargain in February 2021 where he provided information to the police.

The case concerns a fight with another inmate, Keith Desmond Falzon, who is in prison for drugs and child pornography offences.

Both Falzon and Muscat were separately arraigned in court in November 2021. Muscat was accused of causing slight injuries to Falzon. He was eventually found guilty and sentenced to seven months imprisonment on February 13, 2023.

Muscat appealed the judgement before the Court of Criminal Appeal.

During the appeal proceedings, the court revoked judgement after it found that the court of first instance failed to indicate the provision on which Muscat had been found guilty but also ordered the insertion of CCTV footage presented by witness Clint Zahra.

In a partial judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal noted that while the court of first instance had not explicitly stated that the proceedings against Falzon and Muscat were separate but being heard concurrently, this was in fact the case. On that basis, the court ordered that the footage exhibited against Falzon also be included in the records of the case against Muscat. The decision was handed down on August 7, 2024.

Muscat proceeded to institute constitutional proceedings against the State Advocate and the Attorney General, claiming that his right to fair trial had been breached because the footage constituted “new evidence” when the Court of Criminal Appeal revises a judgement and new evidence can only be brought forward under specific circumstances.

He then asked the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to declare that the decision breached his right and order that the footage is not taken into account.

Madam Justice Audrey Demicoli, who presided the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, observed that while the Court of Criminal Appeal had acknowledged that the court of first instance did not explicitly state that the proceedings were being heard concurrently, this was effectively the case.

The court then analysed the pleas raised by the respondents, who among other things argued that these constitutional proceedings were ill-timed since the criminal proceedings were still pending before a different court.

This plea was upheld with the First Hall of the Civil Court noting that the court’s order to insert the footage did not automatically mean Muscat will be found guilty. It observed that the case is still ongoing and the Court of Criminal Appeal also made it clear it needs to decide on the impact of that video on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The court also observed that when determining whether one’s right to a fair hearing has been breached, the entire criminal process is to be examined in its totality, however, in this case the criminal proceedings are still ongoing. This meant that it is not yet known how and under what circumstances the plaintiff would be at a disadvantage, the court said.

It also made further observations exposing flaws in Muscat’s arguments when he claimed that the video was “new” evidence. Analysing the records of the criminal case, the court pointed out that Muscat was listed both as accused in the case against him and injured party in the case against Falzon. This was also the case for Falzon. When the video was exhibited and shown in court, Muscat was present and duly assisted.

The court also noted that Muscat’s lawyer in the criminal proceedings argued that the video favoured Muscat, with the First Hall of the Civil Court observing that this did not tally with the argumens made before it. It went on to observe that even if the constitutional proceedings were not premature, from the arguments brought before the Court of Magistrates, the exclusion of the footage would have constituted a possible breach.

The court observed that the arguments brought forward by Muscat in the constitutional proceedings do not square with what was said before the Court of Magistrates, since he had then recognised the video as evidence but now contradictorily claimed it as “new”.

The application was dismissed.

Madam Justice Audrey Demicoli presided over the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Lawyers José Herrera and Kirsty Muscat assisted Muscat.

Lawyer Carina Bugeja Testa from the State Advocate’s Office appeared for the respondents.