Defence lawyers in one of the Vitals cases have raised doubts about the identity of one of the forensic experts listed as having worked on the case.
“Who is Christopher Sittlington?” lawyers Franco Debono and Stefano Filletti asked when proceedings continued on Friday against former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne and other defendants in the second case related to the botched hospitals privatisation deal.
Fearne, former finance minister Edward Scicluna, two former permanent secretaries and a number of other defendants stand accused of fraud and misappropriation over the 2015 deal whereby Karin Grech, St Luke’s and Gozo General Hospital were handed over to Vitals Global Healthcare.
The concession, which was subsequently taken over by Steward Healthcare, was subsequently annulled by the courts on the basis of fraud and corruption.
All defendants are pleading not guilty as charged.
Friday’s brief session focused on this issue flagged by the defence.
Among the list of experts in the magisterial inquiry report, two of the individuals appeared to share the same surname.
One was Dr Samuel Sittlington, the expert who already testified in a number of cases linked to the Vitals inquiry and whose credibility has been questioned by defence lawyers.
Another expert was “Christopher Sittlington.”
Now the defence are questioning whether this was a mistaken reference to Samuel Sittlington or whether this was a different person, still to be identified.
This point had to be cleared, insisted lawyer Franco Debono, arguing that it was important to understand this expert’s role in the inquiry.
The prosecution was to check this detail and report back to the court.
The matter could be easily clarified by summoning this person as a witness, suggested Debono.
Attorney general lawyer Francesco Refalo pushed back, saying that at this stage of the proceedings, it is the prosecution that summons witnesses.
The defence could avail itself of the appropriate procedure if it wanted to summon its own witnesses, he said.
After hearing further submissions the court observed that although this issue needed to be clarified, the proper court procedure had to be followed.
In terms of the Criminal Code, the court could not order the prosecution to summon this individual as witness, since witnesses were summoned exclusively by the Attorney General.
However, there was nothing stopping the defence from resorting to the relative procedure to summon this individual as its own witness at this stage.
The court urged the prosecution to eliminate any doubts about the existence of this particular expert.
Samuel Sittlington unwell
Meanwhile, Samuel Sittlington, who was meant to face cross-examination during Friday's court hearing, was indisposed.
Filletti asked the court to insist on a medical certificate and COVID-19 test result from Sittlington, to justify his absence.
A witness who failed to turn up when notified was always asked to justify his/her absence, pointed out Magistrate Caruana.
When asked whether Sittlington could face cross-examination remotely through videoconferencing, the defence objected.
The case continues.