Court rejects ex-Steward CEO’s request to freeze Maltese criminal case pending US Senate testimony

A court has refused former Steward Healthcare CEO Ralph De La Torre’s bid to halt criminal proceedings in Malta, ruling that his claims of prejudice arising from parallel proceedings in the United States were premature and did not meet the strict threshold required for an interim measure.

The court rejected an application filed in October requesting the suspension of proceedings before the Court of Magistrates names until the constitutional case is decided.

De La Torre, who until a few months ago led US-registered company Steward Healthcare, told the court he was facing scrutiny in the United States over alleged misappropriation of Steward funds and had been summoned to testify in proceedings connected to a US Senate investigation.

The defence argued that he had also opened proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and claimed that any testimony he might give in Washington could be used against him in Malta in the hospitals concession criminal investigations.

At the same time, Maltese authorities have initiated criminal proceedings related to the hospitals privatisation deal that began with Vitals Global Healthcare and was later taken over by Steward Healthcare, following a magisterial inquiry into alleged corruption surrounding the concession.

In his constitutional case, De La Torre asked the court to declare that his right to a fair trial had been, or was likely to be, breached because he was allegedly being “forced” into a position where he might have to testify abroad while facing parallel criminal proceedings in Malta.

He also attacked the evidentiary basis of the Maltese case, arguing that proceedings were based on a report prepared by forensic expert Jeremy Harbinson or employees of Harbinson Forensics Ltd. De La Torre claimed the report was subject to serious doubts as to how it was drawn up, and argued that its authors were not expected to testify to confirm its contents, meaning it could never amount to evidence establishing a “reasonable prospect of conviction”.

On that basis, he asked the constitutional court to stop criminal action being taken against him, or alternatively to suspend proceedings until the US court case and US Senate proceedings are concluded.

Pending the constitutional case, he filed a separate request for an interim measure, an urgent provisional order to freeze the Maltese criminal proceedings in the meantime.

The Attorney General opposed the request, arguing that the legal requirements for an interim measure were not satisfied.

They submitted that De La Torre had ordinary procedural remedies available to him before the criminal court itself, including the ability to request a stay before the Court of Magistrates and to contest any reliance on expert evidence or foreign testimony in the context of those proceedings.

The State also insisted that the case was still at an early stage, and that it was too soon to claim any prima facie breach of the right to a fair trial, which must be assessed in the totality of proceedings and not on a single, hypothetical development.

They further argued there was no imminent threat to De La Torre’s “vital interests”, as required in law and jurisprudence for interim measures.

In a detailed analysis, The court reviewed Maltese and Strasbourg principles on interim measures, noting that such orders are reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm, and where a court must preserve the status quo to ensure it can still provide an adequate and effective remedy later.

The court stressed that interim measures are not to be granted lightly or on the basis of uncertain future scenarios, and that the applicant must show, at least prima facie, that a fundamental right is being breached or is likely to be breached in a concrete and imminent way.

Applying those principles to De La Torre’s request, the court found the key parts of his claim remained speculative.

The court noted that proceedings before the US District Court were still pending and that, at the time of the application, De La Torre did not even know whether he would in fact be required to testify before the US Senate.

The court also held that since De La Torre had not yet given any Senate testimony, and since no such evidence had been introduced into the Maltese criminal case, it was impossible at this stage to establish, even prima facie, that his right to a fair hearing or his privilege against self-incrimination was being violated.

Even if the US proceedings were to conclude unfavourably for him, the court said there was no guarantee that testimony given abroad would be admitted as evidence in Malta. And if it were, De La Torre would still retain the right to contest admissibility before the Maltese courts.

The court also observed that if prosecutors intended to rely on testimony given abroad, it would be in their own interest for that testimony to be available before proceedings advanced further, meaning the concern raised by De La Torre could be addressed through the normal progression of the case, without the constitutional court “stultifying” criminal proceedings through an interim order.

The court added that De La Torre would remain free to request urgent relief again if circumstances changed and the situation became “less hypothetical”.

For these reasons, the court concluded that the elements required by law and jurisprudence for an interim measure had not been satisfied and dismissed the request, ordering costs of the interim-measure episode to be borne by the applicant.

Judge Audrey Demicoli presided.

Lawyers José Herrera, David Camilleri and Matthew Xuereb appeared for De La Torre.

Lawyers Julian Farrugia and Charlene Muscat represented the State Advocate and the Attorney General.