Vince Muscat testimony in Daphne murder inquiry to be seen in Degiorgio case, judge rules

In a decree handed down this afternoon, Madam Justice Edwina Grima has ruled that a legal copy of the sworn testimony of Vincent Muscat, known as Il-Koħħu, given to the magisterial inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia is to be exhibited in the case against Alfred and George Degiorgio, before he concludes his testimony and is cross-examined.

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit has since appointed a hearing on 16 April for this purpose.

The Degiorgio brothers brothers are accused of planting and detonating the bomb which killed journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017. Muscat, who also faced murder charges, pleaded guilty to the crime in exchange of a 15-year prison sentence and testimony related to other crimes. The Degiorgios had asked the court to order the prosecution to exhibit all the statements released by Muscat to the Commissioner of Police during his interrogation as well as his sworn testimony before the magisterial inquiry into the murder, in the proceedings for the compilation of evidence. In addition, they wanted this to be done before the continuation of Muscat’s cross-examination, in order to confront him with it.

The judge had ordered the prosecutors to tell her whether this would involve references to investigations into other matters or would face other obstacles to the right of disclosure. Defence lawyer William Cuschieri had declared that he had no objection to any such reference being obscured or erased by the police or the inquiring magistrate.

Madam Justice Grima observed that the right of disclosure was introduced into Maltese law in 2014 and gave persons accused of a crime the right to see what evidence the police had against them. In this case, the judge said that police intelligence information would not always constitute admissible evidence, but when Muscat had voluntarily come forward to speak to the police it was still being established as to whether his confidential information was useful to the case. The information given by Muscat to the police relating to the murder was subsequently confirmed on oath before the inquiring magistrate.

“Therefore the position is slightly different with regards the sworn testimony which the witness offers to the inquiring magistrate before he filed an admission to his involvement in this crime. This because here the witness now gives detailed testimony where all the persons he says were involved in this criminal enterprise are indicated.”

“The sworn testimony given by Muscat to the inquiring magistrate therefore forms an integral part of the case file (proces verbal) about the murder of Caruana Galizia, which inquiry was closed early so that if any material evidence in this inquiry is gathered it would not be available to the accused any more, but would still be available to others also accused with involvement in the murder and who were arraigned after Muscat testified in the inquiry.”

The failure to produce these statements would not harm the criminal justice process against the Degiorgios, but the same could not be said about the sworn testimony given to the inquiring magistrate which is admissible and should be presented in court to allow the defence to test what is said now by such an important witness in court, ruled the judge, explaining that this was to safeguard the all-important legal principle of equality of arms.

“Above all this witness was produced by the prosecution, testified viva voce and now the accused have the right to cross-examine to protect their right to a fair hearing.”

For this reason, the court sent the acts of the case back to the compiling magistrate so that the Registrar of Courts can exhibit a legal copy of the sworn testimony given by Vincent Muscat in the magisterial inquiry and then afterwards, continue his testimony and cross-examination.