Once the Attorney General had struck a plea deal with Darren Debono, making him a competent witness at the upcoming trial over the failed HSBC armed robbery, then the AG was to guarantee protection to the witness who appeared reluctant to testify the whole truth, a Criminal Court declared. 

Debono’s position had shifted overnight from that of co-accused alongside Vince Muscat, known as il-Koħħu, at the trial over their alleged involvement in the attempted holdup at the bank’s Qormi headquarters in 2010, to that of witness following a plea bargain agreement reached at the eleventh hour. 

In terms of the deal, the AG dropped the attempted homicide charge against Debono in exchange for his testimony against his former co-accused, Muscat. 

Debono was jailed for 10 years and six months and was handed a fine of €18,000 in terms of that plea deal.

But matters took an unexpected twist when Debono declared, immediately after being administered the oath before the Magistrates’ Court where his testimony was to be compiled before the trial, that he would not name any third parties linked to the botched heist. 

Debono said that he would only testify against Muscat, explaining that he feared for his own safety and that of his family if he were to mention any third parties. 

That unexpected turn in open court had triggered criminal charges against Debono and an additional jail term of six months, together with a €4,600 fine, over and above the punishment he had received after admitting to his role in the failed heist.

The reluctant witness stood firm by his decision not to testify the whole truth even when the matter reached appeal stage where punishment was halved on the basis of a legal technicality. 

However, Debono’s steadfast attitude when summoned to testify, triggered objections by Muscat’s lawyers when the AG made a fresh request before the Criminal Court to have Debono’s name added to the list of witnesses to testify at the trial. 

During a hearing earlier in April, lawyers Franco Debono and Roberto Montalto raised a number of arguments to rebut the prosecution’s request, claiming that admitting Debono as witness could result in a serious miscarriage of justice. 

Prosecution's request upheld

On Wednesday, Madam Justice Edwina Grima, delivered a decree, upholding the prosecution’s request and ordering the case file to be sent back to the Magistrates’ Court for Debono’s testimony to be compiled before the records are moved back to the Criminal Court for trial. 

Muscat’s defence had argued that Debono’s reluctance to testify meant that he could never be a competent witness and his testimony could not be admissible in evidence. 

However, the court deemed that the defence were basing their objection on “mistaken premises” since Debono had not been found guilty of perjury but of refusing to testify as envisaged under article 522 of the Criminal Code. 

And the law itself granted the Court discretion to guide any such reticent or reluctant witness towards the truth. 

A person who refused to take the oath or to testify as expected to or gave confusing testimony was no less a competent witness and his evidence was still admissible. 

In this case, Debono did not refuse to take the oath nor to testify but refused over and over to name third parties claiming that he feared for the safety of his family and himself. 

After taking the witness stand and being administered the oath, he evidently found it difficult to answer questions which, in his view, could place him and his relatives in danger. 

However, that did not make him inadmissible, said the court, pointing out that the legislator had in fact foreseen such a scenario of witnesses being worried and finding it difficult to recount facts known to them. 

In this case, since the AG had reached the plea deal with Debono, then it was for the AG to ensure, through the help of the Police Commissioner, that the witness and his family were guaranteed protection. 

At the end of the day, it was for the AG to also possibly request that the witness be allowed to testify via videoconference. 

Contrary to what the defence had argued, Debono did not refuse to take an oath nor did he refuse to testify in a capricious manner. Nor did circumstances indicate that he would not tell the truth. 

As for the defence’s argument that Debono had been interdicted in terms of a previous conviction, the court noted that that judgment referred to a general interdiction which made Debono ineligible to hold public office or employment. 

However, such form of interdiction did not disqualify him from testifying in court. 

The judge ordered the case to be sent back to the Magistrates’ Court to hear Debono’s testimony and directed the AG to ensure that the witness was afforded all necessary protection even through the assistance of the Police Commissioner.

Lawyer Anthony Vella represented the AG’s Office. Lawyers Franco Debono and Roberto Montalto are counsel to Muscat.