The prosecutor in the bribery trial of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo argued in court this afternoon that Dr Arrigo broke his oath of office and the law when he took no action after having been offered money to reduce a prison term on appeal.

Dr Anthony Barbara said that Dr Arrigo knew what his duties were. He had been approached by people offered money, but instead of informing the President, he did not say anything. He knew he was breaking the law but carried on.

There was only one truth, his actions had indicated what his intentions were. One did not usually say he would be killing someone before actually doing so. If one shot at someone then the intention was there. In this case, Dr Arrigo tried to fool the police that he did not want the money. But he told his employee, Joe Galea, straight away what had happened.

This was a person who never imagined that he was going to be caught, a person who thought he was above the law.

Dr Arrigo knew his duties. He had every opportunity to admit his guilt. There was no need to wait for seven years. Dr Arrigo said the money were given to him in a moment of weakness. But was it?

A man who he called his friend had abused of his friendship and put him in this situation. But there were obligations and duties which were aimed to stop these things from happening. Dr Arrigo had said that he did not accept the money, but there was an agreement about Lm10,000, as was evident from the phone calls.

This was not complicity just after the Appeal Court's judgement, but before. Did one pay for something before or after that something was done? It did not make sense for one to take money which one said he did not want. What logic was that this?

Dr Arrigo tried to justify his actions by saying that he was confused. But he kept the money for more than a month and even said he took two Lm20 notes to check whether they were false. He therefore used some of that money. Checking whether it was false was an excuse.

The moment he took the money and put it in a box, he became an accomplice. Whether or not he was sorry, the crime had been done.

Giving the money to charity would have been tantamount to money laundering since that money had been derived from an illegality, Dr Barbara said.

All of Dr Arrigo's actions showed that he tried not to get caught. He broke the law and continued to break the law.

If Anthony Grech Sant (the alleged go-between) knew the judge did not want anything, why did he keep going back to give Dr Arrigo the money?

Of course, Dr Arrigo was worried after he took the money home. He was worried because he knew he had done something wrong.

Dr Barbara argued that everyone knew, even Mr Justice Filletti who sat on the same appeals court, that the normal jail term was 13 years (and not 12). But Dr Arrigo imposed his own opinion.

Dr Arrigo was a judge who had himself admitted that he had not done his duty. His discretion had been influenced by outside factors, his friendships and anti-friendships have no place in his judicial activities.

Dr Arrigo tried to mislead the police, and he was now trying to mislead this court, Dr Barbara said. What he had done was not a mistake, but he had acted in bad faith.

Imagine, Dr Barbara said, how there could have been a situation where had Dr Arrigo not been caught, the people involved would have told him to do it again. This was a Chief Justice who could easily be blackmailed. It was scary.

The law had been broken by the people meant to uphold it.

Dr Arrigo had had an option, to report what had been going on to the President, even if the person involved was his friend. Had he acted immediately, he would not have found himself in this situation, Dr Barbara said.