Former Pilatus Bank risk manager Antoniella Gauci will not be able to intervene in proceedings filed by NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top officials at the bank, after she failed to obtain leave to appeal a court’s decision denying her intervention.
The issue arose as an offshoot during proceedings before the civil courts where Repubblika is claiming that the AG’s decision not to file charges against former officials, including Gauci, at the now-shuttered bank, should be annulled.
The group is arguing that by so doing, the AG went against the directions of the magistrate who had conducted the €7.5 million inquiry into suspected financial crimes at the bank.
So far, charges have only been filed against the bank itself and its money laundering reporting officer, Claude-Ann Sant Fournier, who are both pleading not guilty.
When recently summoned to testify in that case against her former colleague, Gauci opted not to do so in light of the ongoing proceedings filed by Repubblika.
Gauci’s lawyer had flagged his client’s intention to seek the court’s authorisation to intervene in those proceedings when making a brief appearance at the first sitting during which the AG herself, Victoria Buttigieg, testified behind closed doors.
However, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Christian Falzon Scerri, subsequently turned down Gauci’s request to intervene, prompting her lawyer to file another application seeking leave to appeal that refusal.
After hearing submissions on Monday, the judge delivered another judgment denying Gauci permission to appeal.
The decree against which Gauci sought to appeal fell under a particular category of judicial pronouncements which could only be appealed before final judgment if the court granted its authorisation.
For that authorisation to be granted, the applicant had to “convince and persuade” the court that it was in the best interests of justice to allow such appeal before the proceedings reached final judgment.
In her application, Gauci did not delve into the grounds for appeal, stating that those were left “to the jurisdiction of the court of appeal”.
Such a statement did not help much to secure Gauci’s leave to appeal, observed Judge Falzon Scerri.
The applicant had to convince the court of her arguments proving that the decree may have been wrong, but in this case, Gauci gave no argument to show how the decree delivered by this court denying her intervention, was wrong or possibly open to variation on appeal.
Gauci also argued that her request to intervene was put within the context of proceedings which were relatively new, since Repubblika’s case was one of the very first to be filed under the recently introduced legal provision extending judicial review to decisions taken by the AG.
However, the court observed that the concept of intervention in a suit was not new and had been raised before the courts many times.
Moreover, in the Repubblika case, the court was not going to decide upon the guilt or otherwise of any person who was to be investigated.
The court was simply to decide whether the AG had exercised her functions correctly when deciding not to prosecute, went on the judge.
Gauci’s juridical interest in intervening was to be considered by the court and the applicant was not correct in arguing that this issue had been raised by the court ex officio.
Gauci had every opportunity to explain her interest in her application seeking leave to intervene.
In any case, Gauci would always have the right to appeal the decree as well as the final judgment once proceedings reached an end and as long as she proved her interest in appealing.
Finally, the court deemed that Gauci was to suffer no prejudice if the proceedings continued without her intervention, since there was to be no decision about criminal charges in her regard, nor any decision affecting her civil rights or obligations.
The court thus rejected Gauci’s request to appeal before final judgment.
Lawyer Jason Azzopardi is assisting Repubblika.