Contempt of court

Forensic accountant and financial crime expert Jeremy Harbinson, who oversaw the Vitals inquiry, is refusing to testify in Malta out of fear for his safety. As a result, he vehemently stated that he would never return to Malta. He also added his wife’s medical condition as another excuse.

With all due respect, I find such excuses as lame insofar as our police can surely adequately provide for his safety if that were truly the main reason for arrogantly refusing to testify in Malta, something that is as of right of the defence to viva voce cross-examine a court-appointed expert.

Financial crime expert Jeremy Harbinson

Our police have a track record of successfully affording security and protection to foreign personalities of a higher profile and higher security risk than Harbinson’s. So why shouldn’t Harbinson trust his personal safety in the hands of our police when in Malta further to a court authorisation to that effect?

It will be recalled that, according to the guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of the Council of Europe’s member states, issued by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) on December 12, 2014, the expert has the duty to appear in court and to explain his report verbally if required.

Furthermore, those guidelines provide that the expert has to let the court and the parties know, before appointment, the foreseeable amount of the costs of the expert opinion. The expert should also inform the parties and the court during the assessment process if the original estimate of costs changes and the costs increase because the assessment becomes more complex and costly than expected. It may be advisable to make the parties aware of the estimated costs of the expert opinion beforehand.

By now, it should be clear that Harbinson’s appointment by the inquiring magistrate and his subsequent assessment and preparation of his expert opinion in a reasonable amount of time were certainly not done on a best-practice basis or according to a standard operating procedure.

This notwithstanding, Harbinson’s unacceptable refusal to come over and defend his findings undoubtedly partakes of a clear case of contempt of court.

Mark Said – Msida

Conflicting sentences

A person is convicted of being in Malta illegally, driving without a licence and being involved in a hit-and-run incident. He is given a suspended sentence, not even a fine for a measly cent.

Another man is convicted of stealing two bottles of alcohol and of attempting to injure police officers. This guy is sent to prison and made to refund the value of the theft.

Sounds strange. Isn’t there some sort of sentencing protocol to guide magistrates and ensure balance?

Joseph Croker – Balzan