HSBC Heist: Koħħu lawyers say Daren Debono cannot testify due to perjury conviction
Debono was supposed to give evidence against his former accomplice on the botched HSBC heist in 2010
Tempers flared in the courtroom on Friday afternoon, as lawyers defending Vince Muscat clashed with a prosecutor over whether or not convicted bank robber Daren Debono could legally be allowed to testify against Muscat in criminal proceedings about that same bank robbery, as he is currently interdicted for perjury.
Magistrate Monica Vella heard the, at times heated, submissions in the first sitting of the newly re-opened compilation of evidence against Muscat. Muscat’s trial for his part in the 2010 botched hold-up of the HSBC Headquarters was supposed to start earlier this month, but was derailed by the last-minute admission made by his co-accused by Daren Debono it-Topo, following a plea deal with the prosecution.
Debono was sentenced to imprisonment for ten and a half years and had an attempted murder charge dropped, in return for his testimony in the trial against Muscat, in a deal reached at around 8pm on the eve of the trial.
When the trial was convened, Muscat’s lawyers had vociferously objected to the newly convicted Debono being produced as a prosecution witness. They argued that he had not been heard as part of the compilation of evidence and that this had deprived them of the opportunity to hear what he had to say and prepare their defence accordingly.
The Criminal Court subsequently sent the case back to the court of magistrates, so that compilation proceedings could resume and the new witness be heard.
Magistrate Monica Vella scheduled a sitting this afternoon, so that Debono’s testimony could start being heard, but when the case was called on Friday, Muscat’s Lawyers Franco Debono and Roberto Montalto objected to his testimony, arguing that any testimony he would tender would not be admissible, in view of the fact that he was an accomplice in the trial for which Muscat was on trial for. In addition to this, they brought to the attention of the court the fact that in 2017, Debono had already been convicted of perjury and fabricating evidence in a similar criminal case.
As a result of that case, in which Debono had admitted guilt, the court had placed him under a 20-year general interdiction, which rendered him an inadmissible witness, argued the defence.
Prosecuting lawyer Giannella Busuttil, from the Office of the Attorney General, rebutted, saying that these were submissions that should have been made before the Criminal Court, and arguing that the scope of these proceedings before the Court of Magistrates had been limited by the superior court to only hear Debono’s testimony and allow for his cross-examination before he tendered evidence in Muscat’s trial by jury.
Lawyer Franco Debono then challenged the AG’s right of audience in these proceedings, saying he had doubts “that the AG even has a right of audience before the compiling court, as this is reserved to the police.”
The magistrate announced that she will be delivering a ruling on the issues raised and scheduled the next sitting for the morning of February 3, in which she is expected to give a decision. If the prosecution’s requests are upheld, Debono will testify on that day.
The court also makes a recommendation to the director of Corradino Correctional Facility to grant the accused contact visits with his lawyers to allow him to prepare his defence properly. Nicole Meilak
"No, but this court is only empowered to hear the witness specified," Busuttil insists. The lawyers start to bicker again.
Debono submits that if a bail request is made, this would be the competent court to hear it. Nicole Meilak
The lawyers are leafing though the case file. Nicole Meilak
"The AG objects to the requests made by the defence, due to the fact that in this case, the Bill of indictment has already been tabled before the Criminal Court and therefore the task of this court is a limited one, in the sense that the only task of this honourable court at this stage is that of hearing the witness indicated in the Criminal Court's decree so that this evidence is preserved and afterwards, send the acts of the case back to the Criminal Court for the trial to continue." Nicole Meilak
Thirdly, without prejudice to the previous two requests, should the court decide to hear the witness, he should testify once, with the examination and cross-examination being heard in the same sitting. Nicole Meilak
"Let us not interpret the Criminal Court's decree in a simplistic manner... We all know that is not the correct interpretation, this court has all the powers of the Court of Magistrates as a Compiling court."
"Not one valid reason at law has been made as to why our requests are not to be upheld," Debono argued. Nicole Meilak
He disagreed with the AG's interpretation of the Criminal Court's decree, he said, insisting that when the acts are sent back to the Court of Magistrates, that court had all of its usual powers. Nicole Meilak
The magistrate points out: "but that is the law." Nicole Meilak
It was not true that the defence was not allowed to summon a witness on the credibility and admissibility of evidence at this stage, insisted Franco Debono. Nicole Meilak
"What court of criminal jurisdiction is not going to accept to hear witnesses on the admissibility of evidence, not on the merits?" Nicole Meilak
"If we are going to make a reference to the facts, we should make a reference to the facts as they happened. We must be loyal to the facts. The application doesn't mention section 406... we understood that the AG wanted to add the witness to the list of witnesses for the jury and we would then proceed with the jury." Nicole Meilak
"We could have a cross-examination that takes hours. We could be here till late at night," Debono says. Nicole Meilak
With regards the admissibility of the witness and other arguments, these, too should be made before the Criminal Court. "This court is bound solely to follow the decree of the Criminal Court. This because the case is being heard by the Criminal Court... this court is not competent to decide on any pleas or requests for a Constitutional reference." Nicole Meilak
Busuttil rebuts that she had not bound her request to any particular legal disposition in the AG's application to the Criminal Court. "The AG had simply made a request that Darren Debono be added to the list of witnesses," she said. "We had made arguments about it before the Criminal court. We had given two options, either the witness testify before the jury or the acts be sent back to the Court of Magistrates for the witness to testify."
She accuses Montalto of "being disloyal to the court". Nicole Meilak
"It is now 2pm. We are going to request that, if the court allows him to testify, he doesn't get off the stand until his examination and cross examination is completed. We don't want episodes," Debono adds. Nicole Meilak
This is the situation in Luxembourg and Belgium, says the lawyer. Originally the prohibition was extended to every person convicted of a felony, but the doctrine developed over time. Nicole Meilak
He repeats that if this court will rule against his client, he would be filing a Constitutional reference. Nicole Meilak
"We have a person who has reached a plea bargain and for who a charge of attempted homicide has been dropped. The same charge remains with regards to our client." Nicole Meilak
"We have, not a doubt, but legal certainty, that the witness due to testify today is not an admissible witness," he begins, as Muscat’s other defence lawyer Franco Debono walks in.
But already AG lawyer Giannella Busuttil interrupts. "This court's sole and exclusive mandate is to execute the order of the Criminal Court and hear Daren Debono. The defence can raise any argument they want, but only before the Criminal Court." Nicole Meilak