Judge likely to start weighing verdict

The judge presiding over the trial of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo, accused of corruption among other things, is expected to retire to consider the verdict after the defence lawyer concludes his reply, possibly this morning.

Lawyer Anthony Barbara, chief prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office, argued yesterday that the money Dr Arrigo received to reduce the jail term of drug trafficker Mario Camilleri, L-Imnieħru, was dirty money and, therefore, giving it to charity would have constituted money laundering.

In a passionate closing speech, in which he often shouted, Dr Barbara said the accused had broken the oath he had taken before God and signed by the President and he had known that he was breaking the law but still persisted.

Dr Barbara was making his final submissions in the trial of Dr Arrigo who stands charged with trading in influence, revealing official secrets and accepting a bribe.

Former Judge Patrick Vella was jailed for two years after he pleaded guilty to the same charges.

"There is only one truth and his actions indicated what his intentions were," Dr Barbara said. "This is a person who never imagined he would be caught".

Had telephone conversations of Mr Camilleri, his family, the middlemen and Dr Vella not been intercepted, the case would have not come to light. Dr Arrigo had acted as if he was above the law. He had every opportunity over the past seven years to admit his guilt. Dr Barbara asked: "Was there any need to wait seven years?" referring to the time it took for the trial to begin. "The defence lawyer said this was down to legal reasons. As if this was so!"

The prosecuting officer questioned Dr Arrigo's testimony and said the accused tried to justify his actions on the witness stand by saying that he was confused when he accepted the money. Yet, he kept the money for a month and had taken two Lm20 notes to check whether they were counterfeit so he could pass them onto to charity. "Come on!"

Addressing himself to Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, who is presiding over the trial and will have to decide on guilt or otherwise as there are no jurors, Dr Barbara said: "Imagine you have a situation where Dr Arrigo was not caught and the people who had bribed him would tell him: Just like you took money before, you now have to do the same with regard to another judgment".

Raising his voice to the point of shouting, Dr Barbara added: "This is a Chief Justice that could have easily been blackmailed had that happened. This is scary. This is scary. This is scary. That is the truth, blatantly breaking the law. The people who have to uphold the law, broke it."

Defence lawyer Joseph Giglio said his client was not contesting the charge of revealing official secrets, although he had his reservations on whether an appeals judgment qualified as an official secret.

Dr Giglio said the charge of trading in influence was being contested because, in order to have committed the crime, Dr Arrigo would have had to exert undue pressure on other judges (since the case was heard by two other members of the judiciary) which, from evidence heard in court, did not happen.

"There is no doubt that Dr Arrigo's actions were ethically and professionally censorable but the court is here to judge whether he had committed the crimes according to the charges brought against him and not to judge him on whether his actions were ethically correct," he said. On the charge of bribery, Dr Giglio insisted that the prosecution did not prove that Dr Arrigo had accepted the money to reduce a judgment on appeal. Indeed, the evidence heard in court indicated exactly the opposite: refusal after refusal. All the evidence showed that Dr Arrigo never wanted the money and had always refused it, whenever it was offered.

He explained that a few days before the judgment was handed down, the first draft had already been written, meaning that what Dr Arrigo had done was independent of the money. The day after the judgment was handed down, Anthony Grech Sant went to Dr Arrigo's office, they spoke about football and then Mr Grech Sant threw an envelope on his desk, telling him there were Lm5,000 in it.

"He was flabbergasted and he froze. He was mentally confused. Had he expected them, he wouldn't have frozen or been flabbergasted. He was caught in this situation and he went to look for his employee, Joe Galea, to tell him what happened. Had he been bribed, would he have gone to tell someone about it?"

Moreover, the lawyer said, in their submissions before the Appeals Court in April 2002, the prosecution and the defence in Mr Camilleri's case said they had agreed on a minimum of eight years and a maximum of 12. Therefore, Dr Giglio argued, the reduced jail term was within the parameters of the law.

Lawyer Giannella Caruana Curran, who had defended Mr Camilleri when he was originally charged, testified that the prosecution, led by lawyer Mark Said, had agreed that a money laundering charge would be withdrawn together with a relapsing charge. They also discussed the jail term and agreed on a term of between eight and 12 years but, at the time, plea bargaining was not formal yet.

She said her body went cold when she found out that her client had been jailed for 16 years given that there was such an agreement.

She said the defence felt there had been an injustice and they requested a meeting with Mr Justice (now Chief Justice) Vincent De Gaetano and he told her he knew nothing about the agreement, so they appealed. Dr Caruana Curran added that the defence wanted Dr Said to inform the Appeals Court about the agreement and he did.