The main witness in the Camilleri double murder case, Alfredo Attard. Photo: Jason Borg

A main witness in a double murder case in which he is allegedly an accomplice benefited from a special programme but he will not be given a pardon, according to Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit.

He said that, contrary to the impression given in court, Alfredo Attard was not given a pardon but only had his case put off until he testified against others accused of the same crime.

“Alfredo Attard was given the status of a protected witness in terms of the applicable legal provisions, with the specific legal obligation to testify in court.

“What will not occur at this time is that he will not be prosecuted for now – the proceedings against him will be suspended.

“There is no pardon for the offences [allegedly] committed,” Mr Zammit said in reply to questions sent by Times of Malta.

Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Mr Zammit explained that, as a protected witness, “[His] deposition may be made without any objection to it being produced in and as evidence under other legal provisions which prohibit co-accused testifying against each other”.

The prosecution in the case of two men accused of killing drug baron Mario Camilleri, known as L-Imnieħru, and his son, also called Mario, informed the court last month that Mr Attard, an accomplice, was summoned to testify within the framework of the witness protection programme.

This was possible following changes to the law made in March whereby co-accused can be brought to testify.

Defence lawyer Joe Giglio accused the government of passing laws to benefit the prosecution, adding that the move effectively meant a pardon for a co-accused in return for his testimony against the main suspects.

He charged that the law had been amended “underhandedly” to accommodate the prosecution in this case.

Dr Giglio is representing Jason Galea, from Birżebbuġa, who, along with George Galea, from St Julian’s, stand accused with murdering the Camilleris.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici refuted Dr Giglio’s accusations, defending the changes to the witness protection programme and noting that they had passed through Parliament in a “transparent” manner.

The amendment allows individuals in the witness protection programme to testify in court even if proceedings are still ongoing against them.

Previously, witnesses in the programme could only testify for the prosecution once the case against them was heard and decided on.

The witness protection programme, Dr Bonnici explained, could be availed of by anyone who participated in criminal organisations or in serious crimes.

He said that testifying before facing the course of criminal justice did not affect a person’s right to remain silent or refusing to reply to questions that could incriminate him.

“A person only joins this programme if he wants to and, therefore, the right of any accused to remain silent and of any witness not to incriminate himself are not compromised by the programme.

“These rights can voluntarily not be availed of by the witness in circumstances where he opts to cooperate with the police in order to benefit from a reduced punishment or even from the possibility of a total exemption from punishment, which may be granted by the trial court in view of his cooperation,” Dr Bonnici said when asked to explain the benefits of the scheme.

Like Mr Zammit, Dr Bonnici said a participant in a witness protection programme did not benefit from any pardon but his cooperation with the police could be taken into consideration when his case was decided.

He explained that a specific article of the Police Act provided that a suspect could not be prosecuted for any crime arising out of the same fact before the proceedings in which he was or would be a witness should have been finally decided.

“When the witness is eventually tried before a trial court, he would be eligible to benefit from a reduced punishment or even from a total exemption of punishment if the trial court so decides after finding guilt,” Dr Bonnici said.