Engerer’s lawyer insists investigation was not carried in the right forum

Last Friday the Court ruled that Engerer’s case should be heard behind closed doors. Speaking to MaltaToday, lawyer Franco Debono said Engerer had as much of a right to a fair trial as everyone else, so long as the case satisfies the criteria required by law.

“The leak of the charge sheet assumes greater relevance in view of the prejudice caused to Cyrus Engerer. The court in fact did order that, according to law, proceedings are to be heard behind closed doors.”

Engerer is currently facing police charges over a report of harassment filed by his former partner, Marvic Camilleri who later went on to drop the complaint. The police charges were filed 10 days after Engerer defected from the Nationalist to the Labour Party.

An independent inquiry led by retired judge Albert Manché found that police investigators took too long to press charges against Engerer. However, it failed to establish how the sheet was leaked to The Times, even before Engerer himself received the citation.

Debono said the board of inquiry, “did not, and possibly was not in the best position to investigate the leak of the document,” and argued that the police should investigate the leak.

“The leaked document is possibly protected under Article 518 of the Criminal Code and other laws, which possibly constitutes an offence under the Criminal Code.”

In fact, Article 133 of the Criminal Code states that “any public officer or servant who communicates or publishes any document or fact, entrusted or known to him reason of his office, and which is to be kept secret, or who in any manner facilitates the knowledge thereof, shall, where the act does not constitute a more serious offence, be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine”.

Manché reports that police and court officers involved in the presentation of the citation denied having passed on any information to The Times journalist .

On his part, the journalist defended his right not to disclose the source in terms and accordance to the Press Act.

Debono insists that the investigation should not rest here, and that further police investigation could make use of other means – such as going through the surveillance camera in courts – to get to the leak.

The lawyer insisted that the leak was a breach of law and the most appropriate forum for such investigation is not a board of inquiry.

“The relevant issue was not the uncontested fact that journalists have a right at law not to disclose their sources, but rather to identify the public officer – or officers – possibly from police or law courts who leaked a protected document,” he said.