The Civil Court yesterday heard arguments by the Attorney General in reply to a claim of a breach of human rights referred by the Magistrates' Court in the case against two judges charged with bribery.
The matter was referred by Magistrate Tonio Micallef Trigona after it was raised by lawyers for former chief justice Noel Arrigo, 52, of Siggiewi, and Judge Patrick Vella, 58, of San Pawl tat-Targa, who are pleading not guilty to two counts of bribery and one of revealing official secrets in relation to a sentence handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeal against Mario Camilleri on July 5.
The two judges are claiming that the prime minister made statements asserting their guilt before they were tried by a court and had, at best, clouded their constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty .
Magistrate Tonio Micallef Trigona ruled that the judges' complaint in relation to a press conference given by the prime minister on August 1 could not be termed frivolous and vexatious and merited examination by the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
He however dismissed a second complaint against the media, remarking only that the right to freedom of expression was sanctioned as a fundamental human right in the constitution.
Attorney General Anthony Borg Barthet yesterday however argued that one might have accepted the judges' argument if they had not been taken to court and allegations had been made without due process of law taking place.
But in this case, criminal proceedings had been initiated and the prime minister had felt duty bound to explain why two judges had been sent for and questioned at police headquarters.
He had also felt the need to warn people not to jump to conclusions and this not just once but consistently both in his prepared speech and in fielding questions from the press later.
Dr Borg Barthet said the prime minister's comments had to be taken in the context of his whole speech and in the context of the events themselves.
He had never imputed guilt but had rather cautioned people to await the outcome of the investigations.
The Attorney General is arguing that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and untimely.
He said the Magistrates' Court's function at this stage was simply to compile evidence and decide whether there were enough reasons, prima facie, for indictment.
After that, it was not yet clear whether the case was going to be referred back to the Magistrates' Court for a decision on the merits or whether a bill of indictment would be filed in the Criminal Court, after which the defendants could choose a trial by jury or without.
In any case, a judge would preside over the court and, in the case of a trial by jury, jurors would be properly directed as to what they could take into consideration before reaching a verdict.
And even if any mistakes were committed by a jury, the Court of Criminal Appeal would have the power to make amends for any mistakes.
The case continues on Wednesday with a continuation of the Attorney General's submissions.
Dr Joseph Giglio and Dr George Abela are representing Judge Arrigo while Dr Toni Abela, Dr Michael Sciriha and Dr George Cutajar are representing Judge Vella.
Attorney General Anthony Borg Barthet is also representing the police commissioner.