Will he be bailed?

David Gatt, the former police inspector and lawyer who allegedly fashioned himself as Malta’s version of Mafia boss Toto Riina, stands a good chance of being granted bail this week, according to lawyers who spoke to The Sunday Times.

During his arraignment on December 7, Dr Gatt’s lawyers argued he “could not be denied bail” because he has the right to be presumed innocent and has never been convicted of a criminal offence.

However, duty Magistrate Audrey Demicoli, who presided over the first hearing, and Magistrate Tonio Micallef Trigona, who presided over last Thursday’s session in the compilation of evidence, turned down the requests for bail.

While denying bail, Magistrate Demicoli had made it clear she was upholding the prosecution’s contention that there was a risk Dr Gatt could approach the police’s main witnesses – PC Mario Portelli and Dr John Zammit Montebello.

But she also instructed the prosecution to ensure these witnesses were called to testify at the following hearing, therefore removing one of the conditions on which bail was refused.

On Thursday, PC Portelli and Dr Zammit Montebello testified during a four-hour hearing peppered with explosive allegations about Dr Gatt being a criminal mastermind with an obsession with the Sicilian Mafia and its mythology.

However, when Magistrate Micallef Trigona was asked to consider bail again, the police said they intended to call more witnesses – a list consisting mostly of court experts – who will be asked for evidence on a string of armed robberies which Dr Gatt is alleged to have planned.

Magistrate Micallef Trigona therefore postponed the decision on bail to Tuesday, but demanded that the evidence be heard during the forthcoming sitting, after which he will make a decision on the bail application.

Lawyers who spoke to The Sunday Times said they expect Dr Gatt to be granted bail at this hearing.

“Had there not been the sensational elements that came out on Thursday, and had there not been this hype about bail at the moment, Dr Gatt would probably have been granted bail last week,” one lawyer said.

However, the prosecution last Thursday also pointed out that Dr Gatt is alleged to be harbouring fugitive Fabio Psaila, who is wanted in connection with the foiled hold-up earlier this month on a jeweller in Attard.

“David Gatt has every interest to ensure (Mr) Psaila is not captured because if he is, he could make things worse for his case,” one officer said.

“According to the testimony of PC Portelli, Dr Gatt helped Fabio Psaila avoid police, and to a certain extent succeeded. This therefore brings about the argument that Dr Gatt allegedly has good knowledge on how to avoid the authorities, and it makes him a potential absconder,” another police source said.

He also pointed out the seriousness of the crime as a significant factor to be considered in this case.

Lawyers insist, however, that despite the serious nature of the claims against Dr Gatt, so far the police have brought forward testimony, which, “at best provide circumstantial evidence with respect to some of the main charges against him”. On this basis, one lawyer stressed, “allegations cannot be used to prevent someone with a clean record from being bailed”.

The criminal code provides the judiciary with broad discretion over the granting of bail. Besides a few exemptions (one of them related to crimes where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment) the law stipulates that a court may grant bail:

“If after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused, as well as any other matter which appears to be relevant, it is satisfied that there is no danger that the accused is released on bail.”

More specifically, the law guides the judiciary to refuse bail if there is a risk that the accused may abscond or disobey the bail conditions; if there is a risk that the accused might tamper with evidence or interfere with a witness or the course of justice; or if there is a risk of the accused committing another crime.