Update 2 - Arrigo sentenced to two years nine months in prison: court's considerations

Updated - Adds video

Former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo was today sentenced to two years, nine months in prison after having on Tuesday been found guilty of bribery, trading in influence and revealing official secrets in a case where an appeals court had reduced a drug trafficker's jail term. He was also given a general interdiction.

The sentence was handed down by Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo.

Dr Arrigo spent the past two days in hospital but this afternoon was taken to prison at Corradino.

Dr Arrigo had been convicted of accepting a bribe of €11,650 when he reduced the jail term of drug trafficker Mario Camilleri from 16 to 12 years after an appeal in July 2002. He was also convicted of trading in influence by trying to influence the other judges on the appeals court, and betraying state secrets when he revealed the court sentence before it was delivered.

All those involved in the corruption case, including former judge Patrick Vella, who also sat on the Court of Appeal, were jailed. Judge Vella, who admitted to accepting €23,000 in exchange for reducing Mr Camilleri's jail term, was sentenced to two years in March 2007. The third judge on the court, Mr Justice Filletti, was not involved in the bribery case.

COURT'S CONSIDERATIONS

In its sentence the court said the maximum sentence it could have imposed was four years and three months and the minimum was nine months in jail.

It said it had considered the gravity of the charges of which Dr Arrigo had been convicted and the fact that the Appeals Court had effectively come under the control of people involved in crime. This was very damaging to the judicial system and public confidence in the judiciary.

Were it not for the efficiency of the police and other forces of law and order, the damage would have been even greater.

Furthermore, the court had noted that the accused had not cooperated in the judicial process.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said one of the purposes of punishment was to bring about a reform of the accused, but in this case, the court was satisfied that Dr Arrigo would not follow the road to crime. The fact that a person committed a mistake, even a serious one, did not make him a bad person. Indeed, a mistake could help one to realise his ways.

In this instance, the court felt that the case did not stem from greed for money, but from weakness and bad friendships.

The court also appreciated that Dr Arrigo, through his resignation soon after the case was revealed, sought to mitigate the damage, which would have been far greater had he still remained in his post and the judiciary would have continued to be headed by a person under suspicion.

The court also noted that Dr Arrigo chose to hand the money involved in this case to charity, although, as noted in the verdict, the court was not satisfied over when that decision was taken – whether it was immediate or after the case came to light. The court, while not considering this in its decision to establish guilt, was considering it in the imposition of punishment. This behaviour contrasted with the behaviour of the person who had had spent the money given to him in a jewellery.

The court said that in considering punishment, it wanted to maintain relativity with the punishment given to other people involved in this case, as well as the senior position occupied by Dr Arrigo and his lack of cooperation with Justice.

It also considered that Dr Arrigo had suffered remorse, bad publicity, humiliation and a psychological trauma which had affected his health. It also recognised that his family was among the victims of this episode.

However, these facts could not replace the the punishment established by law.

The court said it would not give any instruction on how Dr Arrigo was to be treated at the prisons and would leave it up to the prison authorities.

*** ***

In his verdict on Tuesday, Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said he believed that Dr Arrigo accepted the money offered to him as a bribe.

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. The court had no doubt that Dr Arrigo received the money.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo referred to Dr Arrigo's testimony where he said that 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 judgement (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.