A forensic analyst who worked on the Vitals hospitals deal inquiry report told a court on Thursday that he made no conclusions, gave no opinions nor interpreted data, but acknowledged that he played an active role.

When facing a second round of questions by defendants, Samuel Sittlington said that he “signed the report as an assistant,” explaining that ‘opinions’ were to be attributed to the author of the report.

Defence lawyers read out a sentence in that document which stated that “our report is based on experience in similar cases…..and should not be taken as an express opinion on legal matters.”

But in fact, certain conclusions reached by the experts assisting the inquiring magistrate could be construed as legal opinions, pointed out lawyers assisting former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank Governor Edward Scicluna and other high-profile figures who are all pleading not guilty to alleged involvement in fraudulent hospitals privatization deal.

“That is a matter for (report author) Jeremy Harbinson to answer,” replied Sittlington. “I signed the report as assistant….I do not recognize that sentence in the report.”

He said his role was to assist in searches alongside the police, attend sittings before inquiring magistrate Gabriella Vella, gather evidence and liaise with his forensic team back in Ireland.

But he also put questions to those summoned before the magistrate.

“So you participated actively. You played a central role not just as an assistant,” suggested lawyer Franco Debono.

“I wasn’t just an assistant,” replied the witness.

“Not an assistant? That’s not the impression the court got when you explained on oath earlier on,” intervened presiding Magistrate Leonard Caruana.

“May I remind you that you are to tell the truth and the whole truth,” went on the magistrate.

Sittlington then clarified that he had played a two-part role in the inquiry.

The first part of his task was to gather data by assisting in searches, organising his team of experts according to the directions received from the magistrate.

He also attended inquiry sittings and actively participated in questioning.

He acknowledged that asking questions was “a very important role,” adding that “the questions I asked were provided to me by members of my team…based on missing gaps and data.”

The second part of his work was to determine which data was relevant and putting it into the final report.

Sittlington was appointed by magisterial decree on September 2, 2020 along with a team of experts from Northern Ireland to research data and to understand its relationship with the Vitals concession. 

Describing himself as a “conduit between the magistrate and the team in Belfast”, Sittlington said that he travelled back and forth for searches and sittings in Malta, under the magistrate’s instructions.

There was a “search form” authorising him to be present at the searches and to seize any relevant documents or devices.

Relevance was determined according to the names of particular individuals or companies targeted in the search.

The final report consisted of an executive summary with reference to 175 appendices and a number of folders for each appendix, along with spreadsheets for different references.

In April, Sittlington had personally submitted a hard and soft copy of the report to Magistrate Vella.

He said that around May 23, the magistrate informed him that certain documents were missing from the soft copy. The AG’s office had discovered that certain excel spreadsheets containing financial transactions analyses were not included.

Sittlington was asked by the prosecution to present those missing documents today. He also presented another copy on Wednesday in separate proceedings against Joseph Muscat and other Vitals defendants.

The issue sparked some lengthy and animated discussions on Thursday.

“Were these presented in the inquiry or is this the first time?” asked lawyer Franco Debono.

AG lawyer Francesco Refalo said that there was a reference to these excel sheets in the report but for “some technical reason they were not uploaded[ to the soft copy].”

The documents had either not been uploaded or there was “some misunderstanding,” Sittlington explained.

But the defence would not readily accept that explanation. 

The witness was momentarily asked to leave the room while the parties thrashed out the issue.

“The report was presented in one version with missing documents….. If they are being presented now as new evidence, that’s to be made clear,” argued lawyer Stefano Filletti.

“Let’s appreciate the gravity of the situation. This was one of the most important inquiries. Now we get one of the most important experts coming here in a nonchalant manner, presenting new information as though it’s something normal. Will there be a new inquiry into this?” argued Debono.

“On the basis of his work, high profile persons were charged….This is the hall where we defend the rights of individuals. We are talking of the liberty of people here. They are charged with serious crimes,” stressed the lawyer.

“Will the state of rule of law accept this as though nothing happened?” went on Debono, seeking action by the court to address this matter.

Since the Vitals report was a collective effort by various experts who presented it jointly on oath, then any missing information should likewise be presented jointly, added lawyers Giannella Demarco and Charles Mercieca, citing the relative provision of the code.

Missing documents admitted as evidence

However, after directly questioning the expert upon his return to the witness stand, the court admitted the documents in evidence.

The expert had confirmed on oath that the information had been “crystallized” when the report was handed to the inquiring magistrate and “nothing was added,” the court said. 

Questions turned to allegations that Sittlington had tried to “sell his services to the police” while working on the inquiry.

“Is that true?” asked Debono.

“Partly true but totally wrong in the way it is being presented,” said Sittlington.

He went on to explain how he was approached by Police Commissioner Gafa’ in September 2020 to train recruits and also FCID officers for money laundering and financial investigations techniques.

“He told me to put a proposal for the activities to be done….. It had nothing to do with my experience in Malta. My experience went much further. I was involved in a global case in 1999.”

So how did Gafa’ get to know of his existence, came the next question.

Sittlington explained that while training police in Malta on economic crime back in 2001, he got to know (police officers) “Gordon Borg and Ian Abdilla.”

It was Borg who emailed Gafa’, recommending the Irish expert and praising his qualifications, copying Sittlington himself in that email.

Gafa’ then contacted Sittlington.

Following that contact, the expert met then deputy commissioner Alexandra Mamo “some three times” at the Commissioner’s office to discuss the project.

Sittlington insisted that he had “put no figure” in his proposal, when pressed by the defence to confirm the alleged €936,000 price tag for his services to the police.

“Gafa’ told me that he was applying for funding from the EU. I didn’t know what funding he had,” insisted Sittlington, adding that he was “not happy” with the way this “confidential” correspondence with the commissioner had been leaked to third parties and the media.

“It was an intimidating tactic,” he complained.

As the defence lawyers piled on the pressure, the court made it clear that it would not tolerate “entrapment” of any witness.

But the lawyers promptly pointed out that confronting a witness with evidence to test whether he was saying the truth was allowed by legal procedure.

As questions resumed, the court reminded the witness that he was under oath and that perjury was punishable with imprisonment.

“I’m not saying that that’s what you are doing but I’m here to protect the rights of all,” said the magistrate.

The case continues.