No one was contesting Yorgen Fenech’s presumption of innocence by requesting a copy of the money laundering charges against the businessman as evidence in constitutional proceedings where he was challenging the repeated denial of bail, a court heard on Friday.
That request by the State Advocate as respondent in the case sparked objections by Fenech’s lawyers who argued that every prior factor concerning the businessman’s character had been “crystallized” in his criminal record presented in the murder compilation.
“And it was untainted!” added lawyer Charles Mercieca.
But State Advocate Chris Soler explained that the money laundering charges had emerged at a later stage, pending these proceedings concerning the bail issue and Fenech’s alleged breach of rights.
Such additional information did not only shed light upon Fenech’s character but was also closely tied to the relevant factors mentioned in the Criminal Code provision on bail which was the crux of these constitutional case, argued Soler.
But Mercieca rebutted that proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction were intended precisely to safeguard fundamental human rights.
“Let’s not breach those rights in proceedings meant to safeguard them,” he added, pointing out that a charge sheet was not proof but “simply a charge sheet.”
“God forbid if a person is denied bail because of other pending cases he might have.”
This was not the way to put forward evidence, went on Mercieca, pointing out further that character alone was not sufficient reason to deny bail.
“Fenech is trustworthy,” he stressed.
No one was contesting Fenech’s presumption of innocence in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and other proceedings, countered Soler.
“It’s an overriding principle and the respondents believe in that.”
However, that charge sheet considered “holistically and cumulatively” together with the testimony of superintendent Keith Arnaud in these proceedings, should lead the court to find no breach of rights.
The requested document would serve to shed light upon the character of the applicant, providing the court with “all the jigsaw pieces.”
“I put forward the best evidence. It should certainly be admitted, it’s admissible, it’s relevant,” said Soler, noting further that the courts were granted wide discretion when deciding on bail.
The courts had an obligation to “differentiate” between one bail application and another, the State lawyer concluded.
“His [State Advocate] obligation is to represent the State and that includes fundamental rights of persons,” said Mercieca, insisting that the request for the additional evidence was illegal and against Fenech’s presumption of innocence.
The court presided over by Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, adjourned the case to November for a decision on the requested evidence.
Another matter to be decreed upon concerns the identity of the person who had furnished Arnaud with information about Fenech’s ‘suspicious’ movements before setting sail from Portomaso.
Fenech’s arrest and all that followed suit was based upon that information, Mercieca said.
“We are saying that Yorgen Fenech never intended to leave Malta.”
Lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran and Marion Camilleri are also assisting Fenech.
Lawyer Maurizio Cordina also represents the State.
Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Therese Comodini Cachia represent the Caruana Galizia family.