Noel Arrigo appeal hearing starts - defence insists time line proves innocence
The defence counsel of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo argued in court today that a timeline of events showed that Dr Arrigo had not been influenced to change an appeals court sentence.
Joseph Giglio made his arguments at the opening of the appeal of Chief Justice Arrigo, who last November was jailed for two years and nine months after being convicted of bribery to reduce a drug trafficker's jail term on appeal.
The court is presided by Mr Justice David Scicluna, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit Mckeon and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri.
Dr Giglio said the timeline was essential to prove his client’s innocence.
He explained that when drug tarricker Mario Camilleri’s original 16-year judgement was handed down, Mr Camilleri’s lawyers were stunned as they were under the impression that the prosecution - then led by Attorney General representative Mark Said - had spoken of a 12-year jail term if Mr Camilleri filed a guilty plea, which he did.
Dr Giglio said that in January 2002, Anthony Grech Sant, Dr Arrigo’s childhood friend, was approached to help Mr Camilleri get a reduced jail term on appeal. Dr Giglio pointed out that Mr Grech Sant had testified that, when he mentioned money to Dr Arrigo, Dr Arrigo said he did not do such things and the conversation ended there.
In April 2002, Mr Camilleri’s lawyers filed the appeal.
Mr Justice Filletti, who had been sitting on the Appeals Court with then Mr Justice Arrigo and Mr Justice Patrick Vella, had testified that Dr Vella felt the judgement should be reduced. Dr Filletti said he felt this should be to 13 years.
Dr Arrigo had pointed out that they still had to wait for lawyers’ submissions before deciding. The case was put off for judgement to July 5, 2002. A few days before that, the defence and the prosecution called a meeting with the three judges to stress the plea bargaining agreement. Dr Vella eventually reduced the punishment to 12 years after the three judges agreed and were satisfied it was within the legal parameters.
Dr Giglio went on to explain that on July 4, Joseph Zammit, known as Is-Sei, met Dr Arrigo in Valletta and mentioned that Mr Camilleri was willing to pay him to change the judgement. Evidence showed that Dr Arrigo told him off. By this date, the 12-year judgement had already been written, Dr Giglio pointed out.
After the judgement was handed down, Mr Grech Sant was approached by Mr Zammit and Mr Camilleri’s son who told him to pay Dr Arrigo. Some time later Mr Grech Sant went to Mr Arrigo’s offices with an envelope containing the money. When he handed it over, Dr Arrigo told him to take the money back and give it to charity. But Dr Arrigo kept the envelope. Tormented by what happened he told a friend priest and they planned to give the cash to charity. But before he could do so, he was arrested and charged, Dr Giglio said.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charmaine Marmara'
Jan 30th 2010, 16:22
@m bishop. well said
PJ Mifsud
Jan 29th 2010, 10:54
How can it be possible that one of the accused judges has pleaded guilty, admitted the charges and was consequently jailed while the other accused insists on pleading innocent due to an alleged timeline when BOTH CHARGES are related to the SAME CASE.
Something is not well in the state of Denmark. The more the yarn is spun, the more likely that the ball of yarn will become tangled, complex and muddled.
joe vella
Jan 29th 2010, 09:53
maybe, hopefully, the appeals court judges, given the opportunity to pass down a fresh sentence, apply the maximum possible penalty, without pardons etc.
has anybody given a thought to the suffering that the poor blokes, families and our society have gone through and are still experiencing as a result of this scourge
Anthony Farrugia
Jan 29th 2010, 09:16
Joe Portelli@:"My question is, why would the defence lawyers not recognize the -time line- during the original defence, nothing has changed.It is hard to accept a good defence team did not consider this before ? Maybe I am talking with 'hindsight' - neverthe less, lets follow this closely ."
Yes let's follow it very closely: the defence it not presenting any new evidence and ergo (legal speak) the sentence should not be changed. I understand that the court could increase the sentence for the defence wasting its time by rehashing what was already stated and not presenting any new evidence. I hope that no rosary beads or holy character witnesses make an appearance this time.
Mark Harwood
Jan 29th 2010, 08:26
The key point in this article is 'he kept the envelope'. The man got off lightly for undermining one of the key institutions in our country. He was the CHIEF justice! He has damaged the already highly tainted public perception of the law courts. And, which is worse, he refuses to accept that he did anything wrong though he accepts that he took the money. A former policeman was jailed for sixteen years soon after the Noel Arrigo case. He was guilty of various crimes but also that he was guilty of a crime he was duty bound to prevent as a policeman. Well, is not a judge duty bound to pass judgement on issues of corruption and taking bribes? And Noel Arrigo was the Chief Justice, not an ordinary policeman. The man should hang his head in shame and accept that the moment he kept the envelope he made a mistake. If not, he is saying that there should be two measures of justice, the one we hand out to others and the one that we would like to be applied to us.
Alfred Bugeja
Jan 29th 2010, 07:20
very sound appeal?... I don't think so... In fact it looks frivolous.
joe portelli
Jan 29th 2010, 05:59
This is an extremely sound appeal and if it is correct it should justify the proceedings to review the sentencing itself.
My question is, why would the defence lawyers not recognize the -time line- during the original defence, nothing has changed.It is hard to accept a good defence team did not consider this before ? Maybe I am talking with 'hindsight' - neverthe less, lets follow this closely .
Justice is not based on revenge or worst, jailing someone who is innocent. But I am sad to read such a credible argument is presented now, letting the accused, experience sentencing and whilst he was suffering ill health.
Maybe they should let the accused argue the case, he must be better qualified in all factors of the case to present a solid defence.
Mark Bishop
Jan 28th 2010, 22:52
Who knows maybe he'll walk away in a couple of years time holding a whopping compensation from our tax money