A warrant issued under the minister’s signature five years ago to tap the phone of George Degiorgio would “ensure that the truth is known”, declared the Constitutional Court, turning down Degiorgio’s objections to the presentation of that document.
That was the outcome of a judgment following an appeal by Degiorgio against a decree by the Constitutional Court in May, ordering the head of the Malta Security Services to present the warrant issued in February 2017.
Degiorgio and his brother Alfred are currently awaiting trial for the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017.
The brothers are claiming, in separate proceedings, that criminal charges against them should be cancelled since they stemmed from what they described as “unlawfully obtained evidence”, namely a phone intercept obtained without a valid warrant.
In a separate civil lawsuit, the court had in fact declared that Degiorgio’s right to privacy and family life had been breached by the phone tap affected under an expired warrant.
Degiorgio was awarded €10,000 in damages.
The MSS appealed that decision, arguing that Degiorgio’s rights had not been breached and that everything had been done according to law.
Before delivering its final judgment, the Constitutional Court ordered the chief MSS to present that warrant in a sealed envelope, making it accessible only to the parties and their lawyers.
Although at first instance the MSS chief had refused to exhibit that document, arguing that the law itself prohibited him from doing so, at appeal stage he agreed to present the warrant under court order.
The law itself said that the court could order presentation of that document when it was deemed “indispensable to ascertain that the law was abided by”.
At that stage, however, Degiorgio argued that the court was no longer “independent and impartial” since it had taken the position of the MSS.
Moreover, that warrant was not “crucial” to the issue at hand, argued Degiorgio’s lawyer, requesting the court to revoke its decision to order the document to be produced in evidence.
Those arguments were struck down by the court.
By ordering that document to be exhibited, the court was simply putting itself “in the best position to determine exactly what happened in this case”, namely if the correct legal procedure was followed.
“This would ensure that the truth is known,” said Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, who is presiding over the proceedings together with Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul.
And, after all, Degiorgio claimed that his fundamental rights were breached when his phone was allegedly tapped without a valid warrant.
In such human rights cases, the court had a wide discretion as to what evidence was to be produced to place the court in the best position to decide whether the State had breached the person’s rights.
In this case, given that Degiorgio was accused of murder, the public interest also played a role.
Since Degiorgio himself was claiming that his rights were breached since the phone tapping was done in an illegal manner, then that warrant was “relevant”, concluded the court.