Court rejects Steward CEO's bid to halt criminal proceedings in Malta

A court has turned down former Steward Healthcare CEO Ralph De La Torre’s bid to suspend criminal proceedings in Malta, ruling that his claims of a breach of rights arising from parallel proceedings in the United States were hypothetical and did not justify an interim measure.

De La Torre filed proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming a breach of rights. He also requested an interim measure in October, asking the First Hall of the Civil Court to order the stay of proceedings before the Court of Magistrates until the court in its constitutional jurisdiction decides the matter.

Prosecutors have filed charges in Malta against De la Torre over his involvement in the fraudulent hospitals’ privatisation deal. He has not been formally charged yet.

That contract, now annulled by the courts, was taken over by his company, Steward Healthcare, after the original concessionaire, Vitals Global Healthcare, moved out of the picture.

Steward has since filed for bankruptcy in the US.

De la Torre’s lawyers filed an application in May saying that their client was summoned by the US Senate to testify in relation to the bankruptcy of Steward and alleged misappropriation of funds.

At the same time, the plaintiff through his lawyer filed proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, invoking his Fifth Amendment – the right to remain silent – to avoid self-incrimination.

He requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to declare that given the plaintiff has to testify before the Senate his position would be prejudiced in the ongoing criminal proceedings he is facing in Malta, arguing that his testimony before the US senate could be used against him in proceedings in Malta.

He also requested the court to declare that since the proceedings were initiated against him based on a report drawn up by court expert Jeremy Harbinson or his employees at Harbinson Forensics Limited, there were serious doubts. He argued that the report could not constitute sufficient proof of a “reasonable prospect of conviction” and this amounted to a breach of his right to a fair trial.

De La Torre asked the court to either prevent any criminal action against him or, under its constitutional jurisdiction, to suspend the proceedings before the Court of Magistrates until the US case is concluded.

The State Advocate objected to De La Torre’s requests noting that the request for an interim measure did not meet the necessary requirements at law, and the man could have availed of ordinary remedies before the Court of Magistrates to address his concerns. It was also underlined that, at first glance, there was no breach of De La Torre’s rights, and when it came to assessing whether a person’s right to a fair trial had been breached, the proceedings are assessed as a whole.

The First Hall of the Civil Court made reference to several case law on interim measures noting that these are issued when there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm. Madam Justice Audrey Demicoli also cited the definition adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, and noted the instances when such interim measures are issued.

“Interim measures are not to be issued capriciously. But are to be issued in circumstances when there is a prima facie breach of a fundamental right,” the court said.

The court noted that the proceedings before the US court are still pending and De La Torre does not know if he was going to effectively testify before the US Senate or not.

It also pointed out that it was impossible to allege a breach of right, since he had not yet testified before the US Senate and the testimony has not been inserted into the records of the criminal case in Malta.

It observed that even if the United States District Court for the District of Columbia were to decide against De La Torre, the plaintiff has no guarantee that evidence given before the US Senate will be inserted into the records of the local case, and even if it is, he could contest its admissibility.

“Thus, one cannot argue a prima facie potential breach,” the court said.

It observed that an interim measure could be requested in circumstances when the “situation is less hypothetical”, before noting that there was no possibility that De La Torre’s rights would be breached at this stage.

The court denied the request.

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

Lawyers Julian Farrugia and Charlene Muscat appeared for the State Advocate and the Attorney General.

Lawyers José Herrera, David Camilleri and Matthew Xuereb assisted De La Torre.