A court-appointed expert who worked on the Vitals investigation came under fire from all angles during a hearing on Wednesday, as defence lawyers sought to poke holes in his credibility and testimony.

Sam Sittlington faced criticism from lawyers representing Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schembri and other defendants when he told the court that some documents forming part of the Vitals inquiry had never been uploaded to the court’s IT system.

And there was further uproar when the witness insisted he and fellow experts were collectively responsible for the inquiry's contents, but said it was "impossible" for him to identify which parts of the inquiry he was responsible for. 

Sittlington presented USB sticks with that additional information during Wednesday’s sitting, noting that the issue only concerned soft copies of inquiry. The hard copy given to the magistrate was complete, he said.

Sittlington is a financial crimes expert who was a financial detective with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and previously headed Belfast's economic crimes police unit. He now runs his own UK-based fraud investigation firm, The Fraud Company Ltd.

Sittlington is among a group of 26 forensic analysts and experts being contested by defendants in the Vitals case. Another defendant in a related case has also objected to Sittlington, saying he tried to use his position as an inquiry expert to offer his private consultancy services to the police, in a deal worth “close to €1 million.”

Defendants in Wednesday’s case stand accused of several crimes ranging from corruption and bribery to money laundering, all in connection with the Muscat-era deal to privatise three state hospitals. They are all pleading not guilty.

Sittlington and the Malta Police

Wednesday’s sitting began with defence lawyers saying they had serious concerns about Sittlington and his work.

Defence lawyer Stefano Filletti read out part of an email exchange between Sittlington and police commissioner Angelo Gafa, in which the two discussed a consultancy deal and Sittlington told Gafa he “hoped to build on our existing relationship.”

“This is unheard of,” Filletti said. “How can he offer commercial packages while working on the inquiry for his own gain?”

Defence lawyer Vince Galea also pressed the matter, producing documents related to Sittlington's pitch to the police and asking why he had not disclosed his talks with the police to the inquiring magistrate. 

But under oath, Sittlington said it was the police commissioner who first approached him with the idea of training Financial Crimes Investigation Department officers, and that he then discussed the idea in further detail with [former] assistant commissioner Alexandra Mamo.

Sittlington said that he did not feel the need to raise the issue with the magistrate because Mamo was also involved in the inquiry. 

The project was put on hold when Mamo told him they needed to tap EU funding for it. He never heard back, Sittlington said.

The witness said he did not put a price on his training proposal.

When pressed by defence lawyers who asked him if the price was €936,000, and after the magistrate warned him of the implications of not telling the truth, Sittlington said he could not recall if the proposal came with a fee.

Sittlington’s job in the inquiry

Sittlington said his job on the Vitals inquiry involved liaising between the IT analytics firm engaged and the inquiring magistrate.

He said he was also involved in police searches, researching data and inputting that data into spreadsheets. Under questioning, he also confirmed that he was present when the magistrate questioned auditor Christopher Spiteri. 

Spiteri - one of those facing criminal charges - was not a suspect at the time, he said.

Sittlington said he was not familiar with Maltese law and had no idea what criminal charges could result from their work.

“But I could spot suspicious invoices, for instance," he testified. “We were not investigating offences… it was up to the magistrate to determine what the offences were,” he said.

Sittlington said he would not take responsibility for the inquiry, as its authors were all collectively responsible for it. 

When pressed on which parts of the inquiry he was directly involved in, he said it was impossible for him to say.

“Are you saying you don’t know what you gave [lead forensic analyst Jeremy] Harbinson?” the witness was asked.

“No, I don’t,” he replied. “There were 175 appendixes. It would be impossible to do.”

That prompted sarcastic laughter from defence lawyers. Magistrate Rachel Montebello quickly restored order. 

Sittlington and Guyana allegations

Sittlington also faced a barrage of questions about his time working in Guyana.

According to Guyanese media, in early 2020 Sittlington was sacked from his job as an advisor to that country’s economic crimes division, SOCU, following media reports that he had set up a private fraud consultancy firm while doing that work.

Guyanese media reported that Sittlington was employed by the British government to assist Guyanese police.

They quoted Britain’s high commissioner to Guyana, Gregg Quinn, as saying “in light of information about Dr Sittlington’s private business interests his contract in Guyana has been terminated with immediate effect”.

Those articles were still publicly available online as of Wednesday's sitting.

The situation was identical to what Sittlington was doing in negotiating a consultancy deal with the Malta police, defence lawyers argued.

But Sittlington said otherwise.

It was not true that he was hired by the British government to work in Guyana, he said, insisting he had been hired by a Belfast-based firm.

Sittlington said he had sued Guyanese media that reported that and reached a financial settlement.

The witness implied media reports in Guyana were politically motivated.

“There was a lot of animosity towards me, because I reported [SOCU chief Sidney] James and he was sacked,” Sittlington testified. “The day after I reported him, these articles appeared in the press.”

Sittlington also faced questions about various other aspects of the inquiry.

He said he could not recall details related to the Cyclotron, a failed cancer treatment machine project that Vitals was involved in. Other experts were better placed to answer those questions, he said.

He also confirmed that data used in one inquiry might apply to others that he was involved in. The magistrate might have asked for data from a magistrate conducting another inquiry, he said. 

Sittlington did not discount the possibility that the same evidence appeared in separate inquiries.

“That could have happened, but the keywords in one inquiry are different from another,” the witness testified.

Sittlington’s cross-examination is to continue at a later date. The case resumes next week.

Lawyers Edward Gatt, Veronique Dalli, Jason Grima, Vincent Galea, Stefano Filletti, Giannella De Marco, Charles Mercieca, Mark Vassallo, Charlon Gouder, Ishmael Psaila, Rachel Powell, Luke Dalli, Arthur Azzopardi, Shazoo Ghaznavi, Etienne Borg Ferranti and Jessica Formosa appeared for the various defendants. 

Attorney General lawyers Francesco Refalo, Rebekah Spiteri, Shelby Aquilina and Inspectors Wayne Borg prosecuted.