Vince Muscat’s lawyers filed a judicial protest on Sunday against the Attorney General, holding her responsible for their client’s alleged breach of rights as a result of Daren Debono’s “mockery” of his oath to testify.

This latest twist in the court saga surrounding the 2010 HSBC failed heist case came about on Sunday afternoon when Muscat’s lawyers requested the urgent opening of the court registry to file the judicial act, claiming that the case was heading towards a “miscarriage of justice”.

On Thursday, Debono, known as it-Topo, was meant to give evidence in the case against his former co-accused, Muscat.

Debono had registered an eleventh-hour admission on the eve of his scheduled trial by jury alongside Muscat, after striking a plea bargain with the Attorney General and landing a 10-year six-month jail term in exchange for testimony against his alleged co-accused in the botched violent robbery. 

But when that highly anticipated testimony came up on Thursday, Debono dropped a bombshell by making a “surreal declaration” that he would only testify against Muscat but not against third parties for fear that to do so would spell danger for his family. 

Darren Debono, known as it-Topo.

Faced with his stubborn refusal to testify, Magistrate Monica Vella proceeded to order his immediate arrest and investigation for not cooperating as a witness. 

Now Muscat’s lawyers are claiming that Debono was intent on making a mockery of his oath. 

His “demeanour” at the witness stand did not convey “fear” but was rather that of a person “full of airs intent of ignoring and mocking his obligations under oath to maliciously harm” Muscat, the protest read.

Muscat’s lawyers had “forcefully” flagged such miscarriage of justice from the very start, ever since that January 6 morning when they got to know through the media about the plea bargain reached by Debono.

At 8.30am that day, half an hour before the scheduled time for the jury, Debono registered his admission in court, was sentenced and the AG immediately requested him to be added to the witness list at the trial against Muscat. 

When the case was sent back to the Magistrates’ Court for the hearing of Debono’s testimony, Muscat’s lawyers requested a constitutional reference, claiming that the witness was inadmissible because he was under a 20-year interdiction for perjury.

That request was turned down by the magistrate in spite of stating that it was not frivolous or vexatious. 

Debono’s testimony was greenlighted. 

But it was over before it had barely started after his refusal to name third parties. Now Muscat’s lawyers are claiming that if this situation is accepted by the courts, it would spell “not only the total collapse of the rule of law but absolute jungle rule”.

Persons wanting to avoid any testimony against them would just need to threaten the witness, said lawyers Franco Debono and Roberto Montalto.

And, meanwhile, those who obeyed the law and made no threats end up being faced with testimony that could be malicious, untrue, misleading and stemming from ulterior motives, resulting in "great prejudice" to Muscat.

In such “extraordinary and special circumstances” such a witness who was not only convicted for perjury and interdicted but has now said that he will not abide by his oath and that furthermore, he is facing threats, “if this is true,” should not be allowed to testify in any proceedings.

Muscat has suffered a breach of various fundamental rights as a result of this and is therefore now reserving the right to take further legal action against the AG, the protest said.