Court experts working on the Vitals inquiry, whose names did not feature on the official list compiled by the justice department, were not subject to due diligence checks, a court heard on Tuesday.
The mechanism and criteria for appointing experts came under close scrutiny when former deputy minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank Governor Edward Scicluna and other prominent public figures returned to court for another round of testimonies before a decision on whether each of the defendants has a case to answer.
A representative of the Justice Department explained the process whereby applicants’ names were added to the court experts’ list.
The department issued an open call in 2016 so that any interested persons could apply by filling in a due diligence form, indicating their area of competence and producing a copy of their professional warrant, if any.
That data was vetted by an audit firm before the applicant’s name was added to the list.
But that was as far as the department was involved, explained director Katya Caruana, adding that the list was forwarded to the Chief Justice and the Courts Services Agency and circulated among the judiciary.
The nomination of experts in each particular case was left to the discretion of the magistrate or judge concerned.
But who ultimately decided whether a particular applicant was to be put on the experts’ list, pressed on defence lawyer Franco Debono, pointing out that a warrant to practise a profession only certified the applicant’s competence.
Presiding Magistrate Leonard Caruana questioned what would happen if, for instance, a warranted person had some conviction on his criminal record.
“I have no power to leave a person out of that list,” explained the witness, prompting Debono to remark that “there was room for some serious reform.”
“So if the judiciary chooses an expert who is not on the list, is that expert vetted at all?” asked defence lawyer Giannella DeMarco.
“There is no such procedure,” replied the witness.
“So nothing! Not even basic due diligence! And their tariffs are set by the experts themselves without any agreement? Incredible! What a racket! They’d better investigate this,” DeMarco exclaimed animatedly.
And the matter did not stop there.
The defence summoned a financial controller representing the Courts Services Agency.
Court experts were chosen by the judiciary, in the Vitals case, by the inquiring magistrate.
They presented vouchers or invoices signed by the appointing magistrate and the agency issued payment accordingly.
Zooming in on the Vitals experts, the witness said that some were foreigners.
There was no fixed tariff and rates were not equal. The agency kept records but the information was not “readily available,” said Denise Bugeja, explaining that she would need to run checks for each particular expert.
Some had worked on other cases but others were appointed only on the Vitals inquiry.
After some brief consultation among the defence lawyers, they requested the court to order the witness to produce information about a list of foreign experts named in the magisterial report.
“Experts were the fulcrum…Their opinions were the grounds for pressing charges against these persons,” said lawyer Franco Debono, gesturing towards the defendants.
“So the more information we have about them, the better,” the lawyer explained.
The court upheld that request and a list of experts was emailed to the court agency for the witness to return with the requested information at the next sitting on Wednesday.
The case continues tomorrow.