The defence counsel of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo said this morning that distinctions had to be drawn between the case of former judge Patrick Vella and Dr Arrigo.

Speaking at the end of the trial of Dr Arrigo - who stands charged with bribery to reduce a prison term on appeal - defence counsel Joe Giglio said that Dr Arrigo had not participated in any agreement for the payment of money or accepted any gifts before the handing down of the appeals court judgement.

What somebody else had done in this case did not have anything to do with Dr Arrigo. The former Chief Justice never went for any money in the morning. There was never any agreement with Dr Arrigo.

"I'm hypothesising this: I'm a public official, someone offers money before I do something, I refuse it and get on with my work. That person still turns up afterwards and gives me the money because he feels he has to. That is not corrupt, but still incorrect because I accepted a gift that I should not have accepted," lawyer Joseph Giglio said.

He insisted that there was absolutely nothing that proved that before July 5 - when the judgement was handed down - Dr Arrigo had accepted the money.

The legal position in Malta was that the crime of bribery did not happen after, but before the deed.

Dr Giglio said that the fact that Dr Arrigo spoke up with his employee Joe Galea reflected the actions of a man who had never wanted the money. Indeed, Mr Galea said he never saw Dr Arrigo in such a state.

The crux of the argument was the offering of the gift before the judgement and the acceptance after the judgment.

The trial is presided by Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, who has now retired to consider his decision. An announcement is expected next week.