Caruana Galizia heirs say slain journalist’s resources incomparable to Egrant inquiry

The lawyer representing the heirs of murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia emphasised the gulf in resources between the slain journalist and the State funded Egrant inquiry.

Lawyer Therese Comodini Cachia made submissions this morning in the human rights case filed by the family, who are arguing they cannot prepare a defence against an ongoing libel case filed by former prime minister Joseph Muscat against the slain journalist, because only she knew the names of her sources.

Comodini Cachia told Madam Justice Miriam Hayman that Caruana Galizia had multiple sources for her Egrant story, because she followed the rules of responsible journalism.

“In this case Muscat is resting on evidence that was gathered in a million-euro investigation and which the defendant, not having a million euro to spend, relied on the rules of responsible journalism. This causes prejudice to the defendants,” the lawyer said.

Comodini Cachia stressed that Caruana Galizia’s assessment of the evidence that she had access to could not be compared to that gathered in the lengthy magisterial inquiry, which cost millions and utilised resources that were not available to the journalist.

“If the source reveals herself, that is the source’s decision, but responsible journalism does not rely on a single source,” Comodini Cachia argued.

One of the lawyers representing the State Advocate dictated a note to the court, arguing the untimeliness of the constitutional case and the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust ordinary legal remedies before filing the constitutional case.

Lawyers Pawlu Lia and Charlon Gouder, appearing for the Muscats, seconded the State Advocate's submissions and asked that the court give a decision as to whether a deceased person can be a party to judicial proceedings, and not the heirs.

“This is a case per excellence where the other party is admitting that they have an ordinary remedy,” Lia said.

The judge asked what they considered to be the ordinary remedy that should have been exhausted.

“There is already an ongoing case today,” Lia said. “The present plaintiffs were not the original plaintiffs, but joined at a later stage and are insisting on certain pleas. They intended to summons a particular witness, but for some reason could not, after that the applicant and his son testified...”

“What is the remedy?” repeated the judge.

“They are saying there was no fair hearing,” Lia replied. “We are before a constitutional court, that is presumably impartial. What is the point of the constitutional case? The other case is still ongoing after the plaintiffs substituted themselves into the position of the defendant. So, they have a remedy.”

State Advocate lawyer Maurizio Cordina added that the libel case is still ongoing and the parties to it also still have the opportunity to appeal an unfavourable outcome.

Comodini Cachia replied that the point of filing the constitutional case was that the applicants are facing allegations before another court but are precluded from exhibiting evidence in their defence.

“The personality of the person murdered is a particular one. All information about her sources died with her. Even if still alive, she would have to protect her sources. Luckily, Daphne Caruana Galizia was diligent enough to immediately file a reply to the libel and, in fact, was murdered three days later. As the heirs are obliged to have the acts transferred on to them, they are in a position where they cannot bring this evidence because they don’t know who these sources are and still have an obligation to protect them.

“It is not a case of winning or losing a libel, but where the magistrate hearing the libel needs to hear evidence which I cannot produce. Am I supposed to summons every Tom, Dick and Harry and ask them 'are you the source?'?” Comodini Cachia said, adding that if the Muscats suspected someone, “they can summons them themselves.”

The lawyer explained that she needed this witness to testify about how Caruana Galizia protected her sources.

Lia hit back, telling the judge that Caruana Galizia had testified before the Egrant inquiry three times “and was obliged to say everything she knew and so she did.”

“The source she indicated was [Maria] Efimova and [then magistrate] Aaron Bugeja reached his conclusions.”

Efimova subsequently fled Malta and could not be produced as a witness.

“Are we saying that every case where the defendants cannot bring their witnesses because someone is abroad should be decided in their favour?”

The inquiry had already been exhibited in the libel case in digital form, Lia said, adding it was also published by the AG and is available in the newspapers and so must be physically exhibited in this case.

Before adjourning the case to December, the judge ordered that the legal copy of the libel proceedings exhibited in the constitutional case must also include “every exhibit and annex in any format.”