Judge throws out Degiorgios’ human rights case over arrest

Court finds no fundamental human rights breach regarding the arrest of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s alleged hitmen  

From left to right: Vince Muscat, Alfred Degiorgio and George Degiorgio
From left to right: Vince Muscat, Alfred Degiorgio and George Degiorgio

The First Hall of the Civil Court, in its Constitutional jurisdiction, has found no fundamental human rights breach with regards to the arrest of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s alleged hitmen.

Alfred Degiorgio, his brother George and Vince Muscat stand charged with carrying out the murder of the journalist, who was killed in a car bomb attack in 2017.

They had filed Constitutional proceedings against the State Advocate and the Commissioner of Police, complaining that they had not been shown a warrant when they were arrested in Marsa in December 2017 or when police searched their residences in St. Paul’s Bay, Msida and Siggiewi.

Vincent Muscat had withdrawn his claim during the hearing of the case.

The men complained that they had not been informed as to why they were being arrested, or their properties searched until 36 hours after their arrests.

Presiding judge Joanne Vella Cuschieri did not find a breach of the suspect's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or their fundamental freedoms.

She noted that a failure to notify the detention order officially to the accused did not amount to a “gross or obvious irregularity” and that Inspector (now Superintendent) Keith Arnaud had insisted in court that he had personally informed the accused of the reasons for their arrest – suspected involvement in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia - at the time.

The court observed that at no stage was this testimony sufficiently contradicted and that the accused men’s contestation was solely based on the fact that they were given the arrest warrant 36 hours after their arrest.

“Therefore this Court finds that it was sufficiently proven…that the applicants were informed verbally, immediately upon their arrest, of the reasons for their arrest and therefore finds no breach of the fundamental right to freedom and security from this angle.”

The court then proceeded to analyse the alleged breach of the same rights by the fact that they had not been given copies of the warrant until 36 hours after their arrest.

It observed that Arnaud had admitted that this had slipped his mind and that he had failed to give them a copy of the warrants because the arrest and searches had continued for an entire day, and they had been left in his car. As soon as he realised this, on the day after the arrest, he had sent an officer to hand them copies. He insisted, however, that the accused had been cautioned several times and given their rights upon their arrest.

The court pointed out that the applicants had “known full well why they were being arrested” because they were immediately told this by the inspector and had not opposed or resisted their arrest. It noted that the law provided for a power of detention by the police if an officer comes across a person who he knows to be subject to an arrest warrant, even if the officer did not have the warrant at hand.

With regards to the complaint regarding searches of their property, the court noted that Alfred Degiorgio had confirmed in court that he had been present for the search of his property, and Vince Muscat had been present for the search of his vehicle. It was only in the case of George Degiorgio’s St. Paul’s Bay property that the accused had not been present; however, his partner was, and the search was carried out in front of her after showing her a copy of the warrant.

“In the present case, it emerges clearly that the searches in the property in question had been necessary to preserve evidence related to the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia from the moment that the suspects were arrested. As explained by Inspector Keith Arnaud in his testimony, there was a fear that upon the arrest of the applicants and Vincent Muscat, word would spread, and there could be third parties who would attempt to remove or destroy evidence.”

The searches were duly authorised by the inquiring magistrate, added the judge.

For these reasons, the court rejected all the claims by the plaintiffs, with costs.