Former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo was yesterday found guilty of receiving a bribe to shorten the jail term of a drug trafficker, influencing another judge to reduce the sentence and revealing official secrets.

As Dr Arrigo walked out of the holding cell at the back of the courts and stepped into the dock to hear Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo pronounce his verdict, the clock of St John's Co-Cathedral struck noon.

The judge found him guilty of the three charges in the bill of indictment drawn up by the Attorney General, saying he believed that Dr Arrigo accepted the money offered to him as a bribe.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo will decide on punishment tomorrow.

In the 35-page verdict, the judge gave a detailed analysis of the testimony and acts of the proceedings, listing the reasons why he had found the accused guilty on all three counts.

Dr Arrigo, together with another two judges sitting in the Criminal Court of Appeal, had reduced the jail term of Mario Camilleri also known as L-Imnieħru on July 5, 2002.

Former judge Patrick Vella was jailed for two years after he admitted to accepting a €23,000 bribe for reducing the term.

The third judge, Mr Justice Joseph Filletti was not implicated in any way in the case.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said it was never contested that an offer of €23,000 was made to Dr Arrigo before the judgment and neither was it contested that he was a public officer.

He then asked: Does it result, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had received the money?

"The court has no doubt that this was the case."

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo referred to Dr Arrigo's testimony where he said he repeatedly refused to take the money: "This was a tactical move, a prudent move, so that whoever made the offer would say that the accused did not want the money." If he really wanted to refuse the offer then he would have closed and locked the door to dangerous proposals such as these.

The judge referred to the testimony of middleman and a childhood friend of Dr Arrigo, Anthony Grech Sant, who said that on the day the judgment was delivered he went to the offices of Dr Arrigo's private company and put the money on a desk. Mr Grech Sant said that after doing so the two spoke to each other as if nothing had happened. This contrasted with Dr Arrigo's testimony, where he told the court that he was "flabbergasted" and did not know what to do.

The court questioned Dr Arrigo's version, saying that since the offer had already been made there was no need for the accused to be flabbergasted because "payment did not come like a lightning bolt out of the blue". The judge said he believed Mr Grech Sant's version.

"The court believes that (the accused) could not in his heart of hearts say with absolute certainty that the judgment (handed down to the drug trafficker) would have been what it is if what had happened did not in fact take place".

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said Dr Arrigo had influenced Mr Justice Filletti and Dr Vella when the jail term was reduced.

In addition, he had revealed official secrets when Dr Arrigo told Mr Grech Sant that the jail term would be reduced the day before judgment was delivered.

During submissions on punishment, a sum of €11,650 the accused had handed over to Fr Daniel Cordina, to be forwarded to the police, was presented to the court.

Defence lawyer Joseph Giglio said there were four witnesses to testify on the character of the accused.

Fr George Vella said Dr Arrigo had spoken to him saying he had made administrative mistakes and admitting he was sorry for what he had done.

The witness said Dr Arrigo and his family had been planning to go to Lourdes but this never materialised. Dr Arrigo had also decided to follow a course in theology at the University.

Fr Renè Camilleri said he got to know Dr Arrigo because of cases he had in the Family Court. He had also met him at the Faculty of Theology. The accused never told him what made him start the course.

He said he never doubted Dr Arrigo's values and principles. It was obvious that Dr Arrigo was a person who was getting a lot of comfort from prayer.

Chief Justice Emeritus Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici said he knew Dr Arrigo as a judge. He found him to be loyal and always carried out his duties on time and without complaining.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici recalled how, once, as they were walking to their cars, he saw Dr Arrigo's childhood friend, Mr Grech Sant, looking at them. When he (Dr Mifsud Bonnici) asked why the man was looking that way, he was told that a case had been decided against him.

Joseph Arrigo said the past seven years, since the case had started, had been very difficult for his father and the family. His father's health had deteriorated as a result.

The witness described his father as a philanthropist who regularly sought to help the sick, at Lourdes and elsewhere. "I can vouch for one thing: My father always brought us up in the way a person should be brought up. My father is and will always be my father."

Dr Giglio spoke on the applicable penalties according to law. He said that while one understood that this case had damaged the judicial system, one also had to appreciate that it had been given a lot of negative publicity by certain sections of the media.

He was confident the court would not give a judgment to satisfy the crowd. Dr Arrigo was not expected to be treated any differently but, rather, the same as other people who had been in the same situation.

Dr Giglio read out the resignation letter submitted by Dr Arrigo when he stepped down from the Bench and pointed to his expression of regret and his apology to society at an early stage of the case.

The fact that he wanted to give the money to charity was a reflection of his remorse. His actions were completely different from those of Dr Vella who had settled a bill at Azzopardi Jewellers and requested more money from the people who had bribed him, Dr Giglio said.

The chief prosecutor at the Attorney General's Office, Anthony Barbara, focused on two aspects: the gravity of the case and the behaviour of the accused. Society had to have confidence in the judicial system, as, otherwise, it would end up being a jungle.

How could two judges fall under the control of criminals? Were it not for the democratic system, and had not the telephone calls been intercepted, this case would never have been revealed.

"One had to imagine a situation whereby the work of the police became useless because judges had been bribed".

Although the two judges acted differently, they both committed the same crime.

The court, therefore, had to signal that such things could not be tolerated. "One could not have injustice committed in the name of justice," Dr Barbara said. He asked for the jail term to be longer than that the two years given to Dr Vella because Dr Arrigo was Chief Justice at the time.