14:24 Quoting Italian jurist Antolisei, the lawyer argues that the offence of participation in organised crime requires the consent of the person being accused. The aims of the criminal organisation must be established, there must also be a “plurality of offences,” and the specific intention to do so must be present. “Two or more persons, with the aim of committing a crime, which must be specified, then agreement and planning,” summarised the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

14:17 “Who is the AG saying that my client was complicit with?” asked the lawyer. “They must prove a ‘common design,’ to commit a crime. What is this plan and who are its participants?”

“If I send a letter bomb to someone, is the postman who delivers it an accomplice?” asks the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

14:17 The Irish lawyers had advised that the best way forward was to issue a request for proposals, an RFP. Three bidders had participated in the RFP, De Marco said. Mifsud Bonnici had not been involved in the adjudication of the bids. The other two participants were subsequently disqualified.

Then came the negotiations, after which the concession was concluded. The concession agreement was drafted by Ganado Associates. Although the final agreement was changed somewhat in the course of negotiations, the main points and guidelines established by Ganado remained. Nicole Meilak

14:03 One of the requisite elements of the crime of fraud is gain, reminds the lawyer. “There is no evidence to show that he had made any gain. Nor that he had the intent to deceive.”

“Mifsud Bonnici’s role emerges from the evidence itself. He had engaged a firm, a reputable firm, Ganado Advocates.” He had done so because he felt the matter required more specialised expertise, said the lawyer, adding that Ganado Advocates had then engaged an Irish lawyer Patrick McGovern from the firm Arthur Cox, which specialises in public procurement. Nicole Meilak

13:57 We're back. Giannella De Marco has begun her submissions on behalf of her client, Aaron Mifsud Bonnici. He is not mentioned as a key person by the experts, not even an appearance in the reports’ appendices. “So on what basis has the AG charged Aaron Mifsud Bonnici? The reports were filed in April 2024 and the magistrate’s conclusion reached later that month,” she said. Nicole Meilak

13:06 The magistrate has suspended the sitting until 1:45pm. We will continue this liveblog when the hearing resumes. Nicole Meilak

13:05 Filletti reminded that the government payments had been made at fixed rates, which Rapa had no involvement with. He questioned how the AG had concluded that he failed to act to stop it. “Stop a Cabinet decision?” asked the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

13:04 The NAO had declared that it was “of the opinion that the Quality Assurance Board acted to the appropriate level of governance.” This is who Rapa had dealt with. Not even an administrative misdemeanour had been found, said the lawyer. “How can a crime now be found?” Nicole Meilak

12:58 The lawyer reminded the court that he had asked the NAO representative whether he had found anything censurable on Rapa’s part and had been told there was none. “I want to save the country from being stultified. I cannot accept a one size fits all inquiry, where the net is cast wide and whatever sticks, sticks. Justice requires everyone to carry the responsibility for their own actions.”

The lawyer said he didn’t want to be even “a hair on the head” of the prosecutor. “He does not believe his own case. His body language betrays this.” Nicole Meilak

12:58 He pointed out that the NAO report explained what Rapa had done and how his work had been certified by the regulator.

“The real experts who understood this case were this constituted body, the NAO. They examined every detail and transaction that took place. From these, they certified that those authorised by Rapa, within the framework he works in… found no irregularity,” Sciriha said. Nicole Meilak

12:56 There were fundamental aspects missing from the inquiry, he says. “This enormous inquiry should have started by describing the duties and roles of the persons it dealt with. Had this been done, it would have made life much easier for the AG and for the defence.”

Distilling the evidence results in no evidence of wrongdoing by Rapa, Sciriha insisted. Nicole Meilak

12:56 Sciriha described the case against Rapa as “cruelty”. “Few have understood what the concession meant, when the Health Department entered the story. They are not required to answer for their actions,” he says. Nicole Meilak

12:54 It’s veteran lawyer Michael Sciriha’s turn to make submissions on behalf of his client, Joseph Rapa, who he is assisting, together with Filletti.

It was the court’s responsibility to do justice by Rapa, he says. “Is it right that a person, who simply attends a meeting, who occupies a post, must be brought here to fight to understand what he is supposed to have done wrong? Is it right that the prosecutors are brought here to defend the indefensible?” Nicole Meilak

12:47 Debono reminds the court that he had, long ago, recommended a revision to the system by which experts are appointed, but that this had not been taken up and persists to this day. He urged the court to take up the advice of Judge Filletti and be the citizen’s shield against injustice. Nicole Meilak

12:45 He asked why some people had not been charged, pointing to George Gregory’s testimony in which he said that he had not done anything. Debono insisted that written on the door of the building were not the words “courts of law”, but “courts of justice” and urged that justice be done to Camilleri.

“Stop splitting hairs! Where is the evidence? Where is the case to answer? The gossip email on the basis of which Camilleri is in the dock today, neither I nor my colleagues have managed to trace in the evidence.” Nicole Meilak

12:45 Debono says Alfred Camilleri had given 40 years of service to Malta and had built a reputation for assiduous attention to detail.

“There is no prima facie, in fact there is nothing at all. It is pointless for me to go on about it, because there is nothing. Much reference had been made to the “voluminous” nature of the inquiry and the “several” experts consulted, but insofar as evidence is concerned there is nothing.” Nicole Meilak

12:44 Lawyer Franco Debono, who is assisting Alfred Camilleri together with Filletti and lawyer Maurice Meli, begins his submissions.

He cites a decree from the 1980s issued by Magistrate Joe Filletti, in response to a police practice of releasing suspects from arrest and rearresting them as soon as they turn the corner, to reset the clock on arrest.

“Is it acceptable in 2024 for a person to be arrainged without first being questioned?” asked the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

12:43 Ronald Mizzi had acted on the advice given to him by the Government’s expert advisors, Filetti says. He reminded the court that the Auditor General had said that the only point of criticism he could make about Mizzi was that he didn’t involve himself enough. “How can I be accused of fraud when I didn’t involve myself? If I involved myself too much, maybe, but he describes Mizzi as aloof, completely aloof!” Nicole Meilak

12:22 Filletti reminds the court that when Ronald Mizzi had testified about his limited involvement in the steering committee and the board before the inquiry, he had not been administered a caution or warned that his testimony could land him in trouble. He had been spoken to as a witness, not a suspect, argued the lawyer. “The fact that the magistrate didn’t administer a caution means that she at no time felt that he was a suspect.” Nicole Meilak

12:11 He reads from the report by Harbinson, one of the two main experts appointed by the inquiring magistrate. It says that the report is strictly confidential and not to be released to any party who is not involved in the inquiry. No duty of care is accepted to any party apart from those to whom the report is addressed.

“With all due respect the AG should have taken this report and shredded it. She had no authority to use it,” Filletti says. The expert report states that it is not expressing a legal opinion and that it should not be used as such, says the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

12:10 The inquiry concluded that Ronald Mizzi should be charged as an accomplice. This was important because the criminal act and criminal intent differed from that of the principal offender, explained the lawyer. “These elements aren’t simply cosmetic.”

So the question arises, if Ronald Mizzi is an accomplice with someone who is not identified, how did the AG in her wisdom, arrive at the conclusion that he is the principal offender and not an accomplice, in the space of just 5 days?” Nicole Meilak

12:09 Filletti questions whether his client received money on false pretences. “What did he do? Did he dress up as Zorro and demand money? I don’t understand. Not even the prosecution themselves can say.”

Citing British legal scholars, Filletti said “a case to answer” is a decision of whether the evidence adduced, stood alone, could be accepted by a jury and find guilt, so at least it must be probable.” Nicole Meilak

12:08 Lawyer Stefano Filletti begins his final submissions on behalf of his client, Ronald Mizzi.

He tells the court that all crimes relating to fraud share an essential element: unjustified enrichment. The money made must not be due.

“The AG had to prove that there was a case to answer for the charges she has burdened my client with. Where are the elements? When did he receive this object? How did he convert it into gain?” Nicole Meilak

11:56 Scicluna was only mentioned in a footnote, Tonna Lowell says, telling the court that it was duty bound to see whether there was evidence to indicate that Scicluna had committed even one of the elements of the crimes with which he is being accused.

Referring to Cabinet minutes showing that an additional payment of €10 million requested by Steward Healthcare had been blocked, Tonna Lowell insisted that it was not true that Scicluna had not acted, arguing that his intervention to block the payment to the new concessionaires who took over from VGH was evidence of this. Nicole Meilak

11:49 Tonna Lowell says that Scicluna’s defence was different to Fearne’s, although both dealt with the lack of evidence. “The experts said that the Finance Minister had the power to stop everything, which is not true. This is not a parish band club.”

The report by inquiry experts Harbinson et, agreed with what the Auditor General had said, argued the lawyer. He reads from the report, which notes that ministers who were not easily swayed had been sidelined. “Scicluna was not consulted in advance about the hospitals concession, they noted,” argued the lawyer, pointing to an email in which Scicluna asked Konrad Mizzi for access to documents relating to the concession. “They were clear in saying that he not only did not know but was completely extraneous. He was kept in the dark.” Nicole Meilak

11:40 He stresses that it was Fearne who had stopped the land on which Barts Medical School is built from being transferred to the private concessionaires.

"We've heard Superintendent James Grech, who told us that Fearne filed a criminal complaint following the publication of articles in foreign press," Tonna Lowell says. The lawyer says that these articles were part of a smear campaign revealed by OCCRP, the Times of Malta and the Boston Globe, and states that the financial investigation carried out by the police had not found any transactions. Nicole Meilak

11:40 Resuming his submissions, the lawyer states that Fearne had sought advice from the AG in the 2018 and 2021. He criticises the observations made by forensic accountant Miroslava Milenovic, telling the court that the expert "had no idea what she was saying" and insists that the 2018 advice had been sought with an eye to terminating the concession. Nicole Meilak

11:39 At several points during his submissions, the court points out to the lawyer that he had been speaking for an hour, asking him to be more brief in his submissions, as otherwise the sitting will carry on into the night. Nicole Meilak

11:13 Reading from the inquiry report, Tonna Lowell tells the court that the experts did not mention Fearne on the list of recipients of payments and neither had they listed him amongst the “significant players” in the fraudulent deal.

He suggests that even the inquiry experts had noticed that Fearne's involvement in the deal was 'non-existent'. There was no evidence that Fearne replied to, nor was he copied in the email chain discussing the deal, argues his lawyer. Nicole Meilak

11:11 Fearne is accused of offences allegedly committed in various capacities from 2016 to February 2024. This means that anything that might have happened before that is not covered by the charges, points out the lawyer.

“The AG told us, with respect to Christopher Fearne, that the experts corroborate his argument that he should be found guilty. This is nowhere to be found in the inquiry.” Nicole Meilak

11:01 No matter how hard it looks for it, the court will never find any material evidence of the elements of the crimes which Fearne is accused of, Tonna Lowell says.

“If the court looks at the conclusions of the inquiry, in the inquiry, although there is no explanation at all, Christopher Fearne should be accused as an accomplice not a principal.”

He questioned why the police had chosen to charge Fearne in that manner, particularly in view of the statement that the police had not investigated the matter and had relied on the inquiry. Nicole Meilak

10:52 The role of this court is not to decide which parts of contradictory evidence to believe, but to ascertain, to the level of between possible and probable, that the “ingredients” of every crime on the charge sheet is present, said the lawyer. Nicole Meilak

10:49 “The Attorney General is saying these people should be indicted but isn’t saying on the basis of what, bar the conclusions reached by the inquiry,” he says. “Jurisprudence had established legal principles, amongst them that the first decision which this court must take is whether there is a case for the defendants to answer. The second is the level of proof required: was it somewhere between “possible” and “probable” or was “probable” the minimum acceptable level?” Nicole Meilak

10:40 With regards this case, the situation was “somewhat anomalous,” Tonna Lowell says. “I have been working in court for 30 years and I have never encountered something like this before.”

“The police have stated that they did not investigate anything. The Attorney General refuses to explain how they reached the decision to indict these individuals… Nowhere is there any form of reference, at least with regards to my clients.” Nicole Meilak

10:39 Lawyer Steven Tonna Lowell, assisting Fearne and Scicluna, begins his counter submissions. “Everyone is writing about, and has an opinion on, this case. But before us we have 170 boxes of evidence and it is on the basis of this that the court must decide.”

He refers to a decree handed down a few weeks ago by Magistrate Caruana in the case against Shaukat Ali. “Here, the court is making a distinction between the words ‘reasons’ and ‘evidence.’” This distinction had also been raised by Magistrate Rachel Montebello in the case against Joseph Muscat, he says. Nicole Meilak

10:33 Refalo concludes that for these reasons, “the court, with respect, has no choice but to indict the individuals before it today”. Nicole Meilak

10:32 Robert Borg, who is charged with complicity in the fraud, had only been appointed to the evaluation committee because of his close ties to certain individuals. Together with Castagna, he had been responsible for evaluating the bids and was crucial in the decision to award the concession to VGH. Nicole Meilak

10:32 With regards to Emanuel Castagna, Refalo points out that he was an associate both in personal and in business with several key players in this deal, amongst them Keith Schembri. This affinity made him the ideal person to favour these individuals, he says. Nicole Meilak

10:32 On James Camenzuli, Refalo explains that this defendant is also charged with complicity. He had chaired the evaluation committee and the inquiry concluded that there was sufficient ground to charge him, says the prosecutor. Nicole Meilak

10:28 Lawyer Aaron Mifsud Bonnici was appointed to represent the government, but was also fully aware of what was happening behind the scenes. This view was one the prosecution shared with the inquiry experts.

The RFP had been issued on the basis of discussions between Mifsud Bonnici and DF Advocates to iron out the problems created by the MOU, Refalo states. Nicole Meilak

10:28 Bradley Gatt, along with others, was the subject of a magisterial inquiry which concluded that he should face charges for offences which include fraud, Refalo says. Gatt had given advice on how to circumvent the MOU and so should be indicted. Nicole Meilak

10:28 WIth regards Deborah Chappell, who is accused of illegal enrichment, Refalo says she “was involved from the very beginning, starting as a lawyer at DF Advocates and then the lawyer for VGH. It emerged that she was the point of contact for people involved in the concession and had drawn up a number of contracts facilitating the fraud. She was aware of the shortcomings but took no action,” argues the prosecutor. Nicole Meilak

10:27 DF Advocates is a registered legal firm, present today, with three legal representatives and can therefore be arraigned, argues the prosecutor. “It emerged that the money from the concession passed through bank accounts belonging to the firm, meaning that it was facilitating money laundering.”

The lawyers at the firm had links to the OPM and used them to facilitate these crimes, he says. Nicole Meilak

10:22 The inquiry was also clear with regards to Jean Carl Farrugia, Refalo says. Documents showed that he was not only aware of what was going on around him, but was also acting as an intermediary with the OPM at the time. Nicole Meilak

10:22 He turns to Kenneth Deguara, who is charged with money laundering and various accounting offences. Deguara had facilitated and helpt the laundering of money, using his position.

Lawyer Kevin Deguara is also accused of money laundering. “He had started doing work for the consortium, in full knowledge of its shortcomings. He was aware of the existence of the MOU and the problems and the illegality it brought with it when it became an RFP.” Nicole Meilak

10:21 Joseph Rapa is here after the magistrate concluded he should be arraigned on the same charges as Mizzi and Camilleri, Refalo says. “The inquiry was clear in that Rapa was aware of what was happening under his watch and in spite of this, did not take any action to stop it.” Nicole Meilak

10:20 He turns to Alfred Camilleri now. The inquiring magistrate had concluded that there were grounds to charge him. He was a member of Projects Malta and was a permanent secretary at the same time, says the prosecutor. Nicole Meilak

10:19 Refalo moves on to the next defendant: Ronald Mizzi. “The crimes with which Ronald Mizzi is accused of are fraud, misappropriation and committing a crime he was duty bound to prevent… Mr. Mizzi was involved, the inquiry says, through a position he was placed, permanent secretary to Minister Konrad Mizzi. This at a time when the concession was being negotiated.”

Mizzi had appointed the board that assessed the RFP, despite knowing that some of the people he was appointing had a conflict of interest. “He carried out, regardless, as if nothing happened.” Nicole Meilak

10:14 Refalo now moves on to Edward Scicluna. “When he was finance minister at the time, he was also aware of what was happening around him and the money being paid to the concession. This is not only being said by the prosecution here, but is also said by the experts appointed during the inquiry.”

Scicluna had the power to put a stop to all this, but had failed to do so, says the prosecutor. This view was also taken by the magistrate when she ordered that Scicluna be charged. Nicole Meilak

10:13 On Fearne, Refalo says the former deputy prime minister knew what was happening behind the scenes. “He knew there was going to be this concession, he was in contact with Armin Ernst at the time and did not stop the concession from going ahead. In July 2014 he was already aware of what was going on and was in contact with people like Brian Tonna.”

When Konrad Mizzi was asked by Tonna whether Fearne was aware of what was happening, Mizzi replied that he was going to bring Fearne up to speed on everything, adds the prosecutor. Nicole Meilak

10:12 Citing further precedent, Refalo emphasises again just how minimal the evidence threshold is, “somewhere between the possible and the probable”. The Constitutional Court had previously concluded that if there is evidence put forward by the prosecution which may lead to a guilty verdict, even if there is evidence which may exculpate the accused, the magistrates' court must necessarily decide that the case move forward to compilation of evidence. Nicole Meilak

10:12 “In this case, the inquiring magistrate did not order further investigations in this case - she ordered arraignments. The inquiring magistrate was certain that these individuals were to be charged, which is what in fact happened,” Refalo says. Nicole Meilak

10:11 “What does the inquiry contain? A considerable amount of documents which were gathered and analysed by experts who were appointed by the inquiring magistrate. These same experts were all confirmed by this court,” Refalo continues.

He points out that at the prima facie stage, if there is even the slightest shadow of a doubt that the accused may be guilty, this must automatically lead to the next stage of the proceedings. Nicole Meilak

10:10 Francesco Refalo is arguing that the inquiring magistrate was certain on the evidence at hand, based on the fact that she ordered charges to be pressed, as opposted to requesting an extension.

“We have to look at how we got here. We began with a voluminous magisterial inquiry that was presented to this court, along with the inquiring magistrate's conclusions. Those conclusions were clear, and in these conclusions, several persons were indicated as the accused we see here today and in other separate cases.” Nicole Meilak

09:56 The witness replies that as long as the invoices are endorsed by the inquiring magistrate, no questions are asked.

“So there are no checks or balances? Nothing?”

That is the practice adopted by the courts, Bugeja answers. Nicole Meilak

09:55 Lawyer Michael Sciriha asks whether there was an overlap with other inquiries. The witness says that the invoices only refer to the magistrate requesting the services.

Giannella De Marco refers to the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure which lists the rates. It states that if different rates are to be applied, it must be agreed with the magistrate beforehand, confirmed by a decree. Nicole Meilak

09:50 The sitting begins. Marie Louise Bugeja from the Court Services Agency (CSA) returns to the stand, bringing with her the list of payments requested yesterday.

The CSA paid Harbison Ltd a total of €10 million, spread across several invoices over the duration of the four year inquiry. €775,000 was paid to another forensic accounting firm, Ansell Limited and €160,000 to another supplier.

The defence asks, and the court orders, the witness to return with all the relevant invoices. Nicole Meilak

09:39 These court proceedings can get a little confusing, especially with the sheer amount of people being charged, and the number of lawyers representing them. Here is a small list of who’s representing whom:

Chris Fearne - Stephen Tonna Lowell
Edward Scicluna - Stephen Tonna Lowell
Ronald Mizzi – Stefano Filletti and Maurice Meli
Alfred Camilleri - Stefano Filletti, Maurice Meli, Franco Debono
Joseph Rapa - Stefano Filletti, Maurice Meli, Michael Sciriha
Kenneth Deguara - Ezekiel Psaila, Franco Debono, Jonathan Thompson, Marion Camilleri
Kevin Deguara - Psaila, Debono, Marion Camilleri, Jonathan Thompson
Deborah Chappell - Stefano Filletti, Roberto Montalto, Maurice Meli, Joseph MIzzi
Bradley Gatt - Franco Galea, Franco Debono, Michael Sciriha
Aaron Mifsud Bonici - Giannella Demarco, Charles Mercieca
James Camenzuli - David Farrugia Sacco
Manuel Castagna - Ezekiel Psaila
Robert Borg - Arthur Azzopardi, Marion Camilleri and Franco Debono Nicole Meilak

09:21 Good morning! Welcome to today's liveblog, where we will continue to hear the evidence against former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne, former finance minister Edward Scicluna, and 13 others who stand charged with fraud and misappropriation in connection to the Vitals Global Healthcare scandal.

Today's hearing starts at 9:30am in front of Magistrate Leonard Caruana. Nicole Meilak

Magistrate Leonard Caruana will this morning continue to hear evidence against former deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne, former Finance Minister Edward Scicluna and 13 others, who stand charged with fraud and misappropriation in connection with the fraudulent hospitals concession to Vitals Global Healthcare.

Fearne and Scicluna are also accused of misappropriation and making fraudulent gain through abuse of their office.

Charged alongside Fearne and Scicluna are former permanent secretaries Alfred Camilleri and Joseph Rapa, current permanent secretary Ronald Mizzi, adjudication committee members James Camenzuli, Manuel Castagna, and Robert Borg, financial controller Kenneth Deguara, and five lawyers: Kevin Deguara, Jean Carl Farrugia, Aron Mifsud Bonnici, Deborah Anne Chappell, and Bradley Gatt.

Money laundering is amongst the charges these defendants are facing.

The compilation of evidence against the 15 defendants will resume where it left off yesterday, a sitting in which the defence demanded the expunging of all documents and data seized from DF Consultancy Services Ltd from evidence.

Throughout yesterday’s sitting, the defence challenged the admissibility of the evidence gathered by inquiry, and challenged the freedom afforded to inquiring magistrates to appoint experts of their choosing to assist it.

Related

NAO report on electricity distribution system confirms lack of long-term planning - ADPD

UK's new government announces legislation for 'national renewal' as Parliament opens with royal pomp

Prosecution, defence make their cases in Vitals proceedings against Chris Fearne and others

Urgent call for A positive and O positive blood donations in Malta

Inflation down by 0.1% in June: NSO

Employers want further clarity on health and safety law

Trumpets, tiaras and tradition on display as King Charles III presides over opening of Parliament

TMID Editorial: More respect for the media, please

Resident groups issue 13 planning reform demands, want suspension of applications for large projects

Vitals: Compilation of evidence against Chris Fearne and others continues

Andrew Azzopardi on RTK103 | 13 ta' Lulju

New Covid-19 cases in first half of July highest in 18 months, active cases highest in 2 years