A magistrate yesterday directed the Police Commissioner to investigate whether business leader Vince Farrugia committed perjury as she concluded he tried to “twist the arm of justice”.
Magistrate Edwina Grima came down hard on Mr Farrugia at the end of a case against developer Sandro Chetcuti, whom she found guilty of punching Mr Farrugia, ex-director general of the Chamber for Small and Medium Enterprises, GRTU.
Mr Chetcuti, a former member of the GRTU, received a one-month jail term suspended for one year for causing Mr Farrugia slight injury after having been initially accused of attempted murder, a charge that was later dropped.
The case revolved around an argument that took place in Mr Farrugia’s office at the GRTU on March 11, 2010, after which Mr Farrugia claimed he had been repeatedly punched. Mr Chetcuti said he happened to hit him in the face.
Mr Chetcuti had originally been charged with attempting to kill Mr Farrugia but with the latter’s slight injuries standing in contrast to the gravity of the charge, the Attorney General lowered it to causing serious injury.
In the judgment, Magistrate Edwina Grima asked the Commissioner of Police to investigate whether there were grounds for Mr Farrugia and other witnesses in the case to be prosecuted for making false accusations, perjury and fabricating evidence.
Vince Farrugia had no right to engage in manoeuvres to twist the arm of justice
She referred to SMS messages that were taken from both men’s mobile phones and presented in court showing Mr Farrugia had contacted journalists and even vetted articles and comments in the press.
“Mr Farrugia had wanted to pay back Mr Chetcuti at all costs,” she said, adding that he had tried to influence people in authority who could help him in this case.
He had contacted the Police Commissioner and the Director of Prisons while Mr Chetcuti was in custody.
The messages also showed Mr Farrugia had tried to manipulate witnesses to testify in a manner that suited him.
Farrugia tried to manipulate witnesses
Magistrate Grima said being the victim of aggression did not give him any right to engage in “manoeuvres to twist the arm of justice”, whatever emotions he may feel.
The magistrate said developments in the case raised serious doubts as to what had really happened between the men.
She said she was morally convinced that Mr Chetcuti punched him and this was backed up by medical expert reports that Mr Farrugia suffered blunt trauma to his eye, which was classified as slight injury.
Referring to evidence concerning chest pains felt by Mr Farrugia, the magistrate said fortunately the medical professionals all stood by the medical results, not what Mr Farrugia had wanted them to say.
The issue was raised after two doctors, Mario Scerri and Malcolm Crockford, contested Anthony Samuel’s findings over what injuries Mr Farrugia had suffered to his chest.
The issue was compounded by the fact that Mr Farrugia’s daughter Marie-Claire told him she had spoken to Dr Samuel to check if his ribs were fractured.
Mr Farrugia then sent an SMS to his son Jean Karl, saying that the witnesses would have to give strong testimonies and someone needed to say “that any blow could have killed him”, the magistrate noted.
In reviewing the list of witnesses, the magistrate also referred to Sylvia Gauci, a former GRTU executive council member who recanted her evidence and admitted to lying under oath in her testimony.
Ms Gauci said that immediately after the incident, the staff gathered and decided what to tell police in their statements. They included GRTU vice president Phillip Fenech, official Joe Attard – who is also chief executive of subsidiary company Green MT – and GRTU president Paul Abela.
In considering Mr Chetcuti’s sentence, Magistrate Grima said she wanted to draw the attention of the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General that the court often had to deal with charges that did not reflect the evidence at hand.
“It is not the first time that someone has been charged with attempted murder when this charge has no factual or legal basis,” she said.
This situation has led to a waste of resources and time as accused would be faced with having to defend themselves against inflated charges when – if put in the correct perspective – proceedings would be made much shorter.