Defence lawyers in Vitals corruption case challenge inquiry experts impartiality
A financial crimes expert whose services were used in the Vitals hospitals inquiry takes the witness stand in the case against Joseph Muscat and others but the defence questions his impartiality
Updated at 2:49pm with more details
Defence lawyers representing former prime minister Joseph Muscat and others in the Vitals corruption case have challenged the independence and impartiality of a court expert.
A court sitting today, was characterised by multiple objections and interruptions as lawyers took aim at Samuel Sittlington, a financial crime expert who was involved in the Vitals inquiry.
Sittlington, with a background of 20 years as a police officer specialising in economic crime, was called to testify on his involvement in the Vitals inquiry.
He was appointed as an expert to assist in data gathering and analysis, specifically to locate elements that could aid the magistrate. During cross-examination, the defence lawyers repeatedly interrupted, pointing out his heavy accent, which rendered parts of his testimony inaudible.
The defence also questioned Sittlington’s qualifications and role within the inquiry. He detailed his position as a liaison between the magistrate and the police, particularly during searches, and confirmed he did not author the report but contributed by organising documents in appropriate folders. This, however, became the defence’s point of reference in the cross-examination.
Despite his involvement in the inquiry, Sittlington refused to take full responsibility for the report. He asserted that his contribution was limited to providing supporting evidence for the appendix. The defencee, however, tried to paint a negative image of his impartiality, citing alleged commercial dealings he had offered to police officers and pointing to similar actions during his previous employment with the UK government.
READ ALSO: Vitals inquiry forensic expert’s integrity questioned in judicial letter
Sittlington admitted his contract with the British High Commission in Guyana had been terminated, and there were claims that he improperly used the personal address of the head of the Specialised Organized Crime Unit.
Further scrutiny was directed at Sittlington’s LinkedIn profile, including references to his acting career, which raised questions about his credibility as an impartial expert.
Joseph Muscat’s defence counsel, Vince Galea, argued that Sittlington was neither objective nor independent. He cited LinkedIn messages that seemed to indicate a lack of impartiality and probed the witness regarding any possible meetings with the NGO Repubblika or Maltese politicians. Sittlington denied having any such meetings and stated he could not even identify members of the Maltese Opposition.
Objections were also raised regarding Sittlington’s nomination as a court expert, with lawyers Vince Galea, Stefano Filletti, Stephen Tonna Lowel, and other members of the defence arguing that the expert's independence had not been adequately assessed. However, the court denied the request to question the impartiality and integrity of the witness, referencing the law, which mandates that expert witnesses testify on the matters assigned to them by the Attorney General. It was further clarified that while no formal request for recusal had been made, any such challenge should be addressed in the court responsible for determining the accused's guilt.
The court noted that the defence’s line of questioning was intended to cast doubt on Sittlington’s impartiality. In response to questions about payments received for his services, Sittlington did not recall receiving any or having a pricing chart for such payments. The defence also made observations about the witness's statements, highlighting inconsistencies, such as his reluctance to accept responsibility for parts of the report he signed, and the inability to point out whether he was a ‘contributor’ or an ‘author’.
After a brief pause the sitting resumed with Sittlington returning to the witness stand.
He was asked about a work reference on his Linkedin Profile that mentions he was an advisor for audit firm PwC. However, Sittlington said this was no relevant to the proceedings. Sittlington also denied using any information which he had obtained from other inquiries in the Vitals inquiry.
Proceeding shall resume on 10 October. Magistrate Rachel Montebello is presiding over the case.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
