Judge begins summing up in Xemxija drug smuggling jury

Defence argues that the men had not been aware that what they were going to pick up drugs

Godfrey Gambin, top first from right, with Adel Babani beneath him and defence lawyer Malcolm Mifsud at the bottom.
Godfrey Gambin, top first from right, with Adel Babani beneath him and defence lawyer Malcolm Mifsud at the bottom.

A judge has begun summing up the evidence and relevant legal principles presented to the jury trying two men for who are accused of importing nearly 20 kilogrammes of cannabis resin on a speedboat six years ago.

The trial of 40 year-old former barman Godfrey Gambin and Libyan Adel Mohammed Babani, 51 entered its penultimate stage this morning, with the defence finishing its closing arguments. 

This morning, the accused's defence lawyers once again emphasized flaws in the police investigation leading to the men's arrests.

Throughout the trial, the defence's principal argument has been that the men had not been aware that what they were going to pick up had been drugs and that therefore, the criminal intent necessary for a conviction was absent.

In a previous sitting, the court had heard one witness, John Vella, testify that Babani had approached him to accompany him on the trip, but he had eventually pulled out.

Babani wouldn't have placed him in such a compromising position as the two had been close friends, the witness said.

This morning, defence lawyer Malcolm Mifsud argued that investigators had leapt to conclusions when there had been insufficient evidence, pointing out that the police also had expressed their doubts at the time.

Mifsud argued that his client's version had been corroborated by the police, scientific data and other witnesses. He pointed to the prosecution's emphasis on the testimony of a former Assistant Police Commissioner, placing his long and distinguished service as a guarantee of his credibility.

“God forbid that the credibility of a witness be tied to his rank in society,” he said. “In our experience, certain people who hold positions which are looked up to, come here, kiss the cross and fail to tell the truth.”

“He did not know about the drugs. If he had conspired to bring a person into Malta, it was not about drugs. He could not have been guilty of possession as he did not know about the drugs. They were there for something totally different. If somebody has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt it is the defence, but let us not be too ambitious – even if you are not morally convinced that he is guilty, that is enough for the defence.”

The first witness in the trial, former Assistant Police Commissioner Neil Harrison, had claimed that the drug delivery had in fact been a "controlled delivery," intended to lead to the men being arrested in the very act of taking delivery of the drugs. 

In his closing arguments, defence lawyer Franco Debono once again cast doubt on this controlled delivery operation.

The police did not bring much in the way of evidence, Debono argued. So confused had been the police investigation that it had not even proven that the drugs exhibited in this case had been imported into Malta that day, Debono had argued. They said there had been an AFM presence in the operation, but no AFM witnesses were summoned to testify. No telephone intercepts had been exhibited, contrary to the usual practise in such operations. No witness had been brought to testify that they had been tasked with receiving the sham drug delivery. The accused only had one mobile phone on their person. He repeated his assertion that this was “the jury of those who didn't run away.”

The prosecution argued that the controlled delivery had been authorised by a Magistrate, according to law. Gambin and Babani were the persons who had conspired between themselves and with another person outside Malta to import a large consignment of cannabis resin into Malta.

The accused were also the persons who went to Xemxija on the 29th-30th of june 2010 to receive this drug consignment of 19 kilos and 412 grams of cannabis resin. 

Reference was also made to the testimony of Court Expert pharmacist Mario Mifsud who explained that only 0.3 grams of cannabis were needed to make one joint. Thus the prosecution argued that this meant that approximately 65,000 joints could be made from the drugs seized in this case. This clearly meant that this drug consignment was not for the exclusive use of the accused.

The prosecution, amongst various other arguments, also brought to the attention of the jurors the fact that six years down the line, both the accused recalled more details than when they had been interrogated by the police on the day of the incident.

This, amongst other discrepancies, clearly showed the lack of credibility of the same two accused.

Finally, the prosecution argued that on the basis of all the evidence brought forward in this case, the accused Babani And Gambin should be found guilty of all the charges brought against them.

Madame Justice Edwina Grima has now begun her final address to the jury, after which the 11 men and women will retire to deliberate and a verdict.

Lawyers Giannella Camilleri Busuttil and Nadia Attard from the Office of the Attorney General are prosecuting. Lawyers Alfred Abela, Franco Debono, Mario Mifsud are appearing for Gambin, while lawyer Malcolm Mifsud is defending Babani.