Lawyers argue over AG's request for Daren Debono testimony against Vincent Muscat in bank robbery trial

The Criminal Court is to decree on whether Daren Debono can testify as a prosecution witness in Vincent Muscat’s upcoming trial over the failed 2010 HSBC heist, having previously refused to give evidence.

The hold-up proceedings against Muscat, who is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for his part in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, continued before Madam Justice Edwina Grima on Friday.

Muscat’s lawyers, Franco Debono and Roberto Montalto, are objecting to the prosecution’s request to have Daren Debono, known as it-Topo, to testify in Muscat’s trial. 

The lawyers argue that he could not be considered a competent witness because he had refused to testify under oath, having had no intention to honour it, as well as because he is interdicted.

In January 2022, Muscat, together with Debono were supposed to be tried by a jury in connection with the failed hold-up at the HSBC headquarters. 

On the eve of that trial, news emerged that a plea bargain had been reached between the Attorney General and one of the co-accused, in exchange for testimony.

The next day, when the trial began, the Attorney General withdrew the head of indictment of attempted homicide from Debono’s bill of indictment. Debono received a 10-year sentence for his crimes.

But in a surreal turn of events, when summoned to the witness stand, Debono declared that he would only give evidence against the accused and would not name the rest of his accomplices, due to fears for his family’s safety. He was subsequently found guilty of contempt of court and jailed for six months, a sentence that was later halved on appeal.

Making submissions before the Criminal Court this morning, Debono repeatedly questioned the logic of accepting to hear a witness who had previously refused to testify. 

“He was charged with refusing to take the oath or testify. So we have the prospect of a witness who doesn’t want to testify…I cannot understand how this court can ever accept as a witness, someone who doesn’t want to testify or take the oath.”

“A person who is not prepared to bind themselves to tell the truth, can such a person ever reasonably be a witness?” 

Daren Debono had also been interdicted by Magistrate Ian Farrugia, pointed out the defence, describing it as a ‘black on white certification’ of the defence’s argument.

“We cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.” 

In a worst case scenario, the lawyer said, if the court felt it to be necessary, it could send the case back to the court of magistrates to summons the witness again

The underlying theme, Debono said, was miscarriage of justice, warning that there was a potential for a miscarriage of justice, in this case.

Answering a question from the judge, Debono confirmed that the defence was tying the issue of the inadmissibility of the witness together with the issue of whether or not the witness can be administered an oath or not.

“The possibility of a miscarriage of justice is looming large over us. We shouldn’t make a juror, a layman, be faced with a witness who refuses to be bound to say the truth.”

Case law has established that the retraction of a statement does not constitute a crime, added Montalto, arguing that Debono had not taken the opportunity to reconsider his refusal after being convicted of contempt. “This fact should seal the case against his admissibility.”

Prosecutor Anthony Vella from the Office of the Attorney General stressed that Daren Debono was “competent and admissible” as a witness, “in the same manner as Vincent Muscat had been placed on the list of witnesses against the Degiorgio brothers.”

“At this stage we do not know what the witness will do on the stand during the jury,” submitted the prosecutor, reminding the court that the evaluation of a witness’ evidence is made by the jury. “If we are to attempt to do so ourselves we would be usurping their position.”

The judge adjourned the case to April 26 for a decree on the matter.