Disgraced former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo was yesterday jailed for two years and nine months for reducing the jail term of a drug trafficker, exerting influence on other judges to follow suit and revealing the details of a judgment before it was handed down.

The punishment, which includes a perpetual general interdiction, is one-year-and-a-half below the maximum allowed by law at the time the crime was committed.

Dr Arrigo was transferred to the Corradino Correctional Facility straight after sentencing but was almost immediately taken to Mount Carmel Hospital on medical advice.

Dr Arrigo's family, friends and lawyers were left in suspense on Tuesday when Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo deferred sentencing until yesterday after reading out a guilty verdict on all counts.

The anticipation and tension in the courtroom right before the judge read out the sentence was palpable but elicited no reaction from either Dr Arrigo or his family.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Caruana Demajo immediately dispelled the rumours about the maximum jail term that Dr Arrigo was facing and said the minimum was nine months and the maximum four years and three months.

Dr Arrigo had reduced the 16-year jail term of Mario Camilleri, also known as L-Imnieħru, on July 5, 2002. He sat on the Criminal Court of Appeal together with another two judges, Patrick Vella and Joseph Filletti, which had lowered the term. Dr Vella had also been bribed and admitted to accepting €23,000 for reducing the term. Mr Justice Filletti was never implicated.

After the case was revealed, the punishments attached to bribery and trading in influence were raised significantly but, in both cases, the disgraced judges were sentenced under the laws applying in 2002.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said he "believes that the bribe was not taken out of malice and greed for money but weakness and false friends that lead him to guilt". Dr Arrigo had planned to give the bribe money to charity, he said.

But the judge questioned whether Dr Arrigo's decision to rid himself of the money came after the case was revealed, although he pointed out that Dr Arrigo's behaviour was in contrast to that of the other bribed judge, who paid for jewellery with the money.

Still, the gravity of the fact that the Criminal Court of Appeal, the highest judicial body in penal laws, effectively came under the control of people involved in criminality was the first thing that needed to be considered, the judge said.

Had it not been for the efficiency of the police and efforts by other public order bodies, the damage would have been far worse, Mr Justice Caruana Demajo said, adding that this should be reflected in the punishment. He commented on the fact that Dr Arrigo had tried to derail the investigations when he lied during police interrogations. The fact that he tried to contest the charges in court should not be used against him but neither could he benefit from concessions given to others who cooperated in the proceedings.

On the other hand, the court had to consider one of the most important points of the punishment, which was the reformation of the accused: It was satisfied that Dr Arrigo "was not going to go down the road of criminality".

Just because a person had made a big mistake it did not mean that he was a bad person. The mistake could serve to open the eyes of the accused to his flawed actions, something which he might not have thought about before.

The judge also said he appreciated that Dr Arrigo had resigned early so as not to cause any further harm to the judicial system.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo kept in mind the punishments handed down to other people involved in the case even though Dr Arrigo carried more responsibility.

Referring to the defence counsel's submissions highlighting the social impact of his actions as regards humiliation, bad publicity and the effect on his family and his health, the court said it still had to hand down a punishment established by law.

While Dr Arrigo's age, health and personal protection were relevant in the way he served the jail term, the judge left it up to the prison authorities to deal with such factors, in contrast with the case of Dr Vella where it was specifically instructed that he should be placed in a section for vulnerable people. The period Dr Arrigo had spent under house arrest was not deducted from the sentence and this is not considered a custodial term according to law.

The head of the prosecution unit at the Attorney General's Office, lawyer Anthony Barbara and lawyer Lara Lanfranco prosecuted. Lawyers Joseph Giglio and Robert Abela appeared for Dr Arrigo.