Has a phone belonging to Keith Schembri that was lost while in the court’s possession been found, or not?

The question appeared to have been resolved last November, when the magistrate responsible said it was in the court’s exhibit room all along.

But testimony on Monday by the court expert ordered to find the phone has thrust that into doubt.

IT expert Keith Cutajar testified that he repeatedly told Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech that he had nothing to do with Schembri’s phone and that the evidence bag he retrieved for her contained devices belonging to two other people – Zenith Finance directors Lorraine Falzon and Matthew Pace.

“So that bag you found had nothing to do with Schembri’s phone? asked defence lawyer Edward Gatt.”

“Exactly,” replied Cutajar.

“So when you told the magistrate ‘I found it’, we don’t even know that Schembri’s phone was found,” said Gatt.

“Exactly,” Cutajar said again.

Six-month discrepancy in dates

The court also heard about an anomaly in documentation related to the phone being presented as evidence in the case.

IT expert Martin Bajada, who was responsible for analysing Schembri’s phone, testified that he handed the device to the court in January 2023. But according to minutes of the case, the phone was presented to the court six months later, on July 31.

Bajada told the court that he was sure that he had handed over the phone in January, and that he had a receipt to prove it.

“I have no control over court minutes,” he said.

Defence lawyer Gatt said the anomaly raised questions about where the phone was between January and July. 

This is the second phone owned by Schembri, a former OPM chief of staff, to go missing. Another, separate device of his vanished in November 2019 just hours before he was arrested in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Schembri was released without charge in that case but faces other charges of bribery and money laundering alongside his father and business associates.

He claims that his rights were breached by the court’s failure to safeguard the second phone in the case against him, and wants it struck off as evidence in the case.

Judge Mark Simiana is hearing that case, and on Monday heard the testimony of court experts Cutajar and Bajada, as well as of Magistrate Frendo Dimech’s deputy, Anthony Pace.

Differing testimonies 

Cutajar acknowledged having made a “mistake” when he asked officers to allow him into the court’s evidence room without a formal document ordering him to do so by the magistrate. He said he had asked the magistrate for one, but was given nothing.

Instead, Cutajar showed officers a minute of a court hearing in which the magistrate ordering him to testify in the case.

Cutajar testified that he repeatedly made it clear that he had nothing to do with Schembri’s phone. Defence lawyer Gatt noted that the court minutes did not make any mention of his protestations.

Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech. Photo: Mark Zammit Cordina

He told the court that the magistrate ordered him to go look for the missing exhibits after he and her deputy Anthony Pace had followed her to her chambers and together looked for the missing exhibits there.

That claim ran counter to what Pace testified in a previous sitting – that Cutajar had not gone to the magistrate’s chambers. He again reiterated that when summoned on Monday.

As Cutajar stood firm and insisted he, Pace and the magistrate had gone to the chambers that day, Judge Simiana addressed Pace directly.

“Mr Pace, did the magistrate instruct you to take down her order for Cutajar to go down to the strong room?” he asked.

Pace, sounding shaky, replied “she controls when to record on tape or not.”

With Cutajar back on the witness stand, defence lawyer Gatt asked him whether he had ever asked the magistrate why she had put him into “this sea of trouble.”

“Once, twice or three times,” the IT expert replied.

Earlier on, Criminal Courts Registrar Franklin Calleja testified that various minutes in Schembri's case were not "ended." 

Unended minutes can be amended. 

A MITA representative was asked to return with a copy of logs relative to a specific time window in Schembri's case. Those logs would track all changes in the minutes. 

The case continues.

Edward Gatt, Mark Vassallo and Shaun Zammit are representing Schembri.