Former Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said insisted in court in Gozo today that he had done nothing wrong in his actions as a lawyer on behalf of a woman who had sought custody of her baby son from her partner, and he would do the same thing again.

Dr Said was giving evidence after the court heard the woman's former partner and father of the child, Anthony Xuereb, explain his reasons for filing a perjury complaint against Dr Said.

Mr Xuereb said he presented a formal complaint against Dr Said to the police in Victoria on May 9 this year.

In a nutshell, he said, the case stemmed from a decision by the court, presided by Magistrate Paul Coppini, which in January 2007 awarding temporary custody of his son to the mother. The ruling was given after Dr Said, as counsel to the mother, Helen Milligan, had withdrawn an application previously filed before another magistrate and re-submitted it before Dr Coppini.

The first magistrate had turned down a request for urgency and put off a decision by three weeks.

Mr Xuereb said the second court had taken its decision to award custody before he was notified and heard.

He insisted there had been no urgency for the case to be heard, and he, as a party, should have been heard.

Dr Joe Giglio, representing Dr Said, said that the accused was not the Magistrate and the case was whether Dr Said lied under oath on April 14, 2009 when the court considered the permanent custody issue.

Mr Xuereb said he had filed an affidavit at the end of June 2009 contesting Dr Said's evidence because it was incorrect and misleading and had been intended to hide what really took place previously.

Among other things, the first application for the custody of the child was withdrawn, and an identical one filed the next day. The court decided on the basis of the second application when he had not even been informed that the first one had been withdrawn and he only learned about it when he called to file his reply to the first application. The fact that Dr Said withdrew his first application and filed another one was irregular.

Later, Dr Giglio said that Mr Xuereb had made the same allegation of 'magistrate shopping' before the constitutional court, which, however, found that nothing irregular had taken place as he had acted on the basis of seeking urgency.

In his testimony, Dr Said said his then client Helen Milligan had called at his office and told him that she was worried that she had not been able to see her baby son for a week. He had advised her to file an application for custody and request urgency since a newborn was involved.

In the evening, Ms Milligan called at his office again, saying that the court had turned down the urgency plea and put off a decision for three weeks' time. Ms Milligan had been ‘panicky' about this decision.

Since an appeal could not be filed, the only course of action was to withraw the application and file it once more the next day before the duty magistrate.

This, Dr Said said, was not irregular, deceitful or shady, as it was being made out to be. Indeed, given the circumstances, he would do the same again.

The court had found that the reasons given by Ms Milligen were plausible and there was nothing irregular in having her case heard with urgency.

Dr Said said he had used legal instruments available to him, in the interests of a newborn and its mother. He had nothing to be ashamed of and would do the same thing again. He was not sorry for what he had done to reunite a mother with her baby.

Dr Said said his evidence two years later on what took place during the original custody hearing was based on memory.

He insisted that he did not lie under oath but had missed out on some information and no one had drawn his attention to this. Had this been done the issue would have been clarified immediately. When he testified he had said that the court had granted custody of the baby to his client during an evening sitting and after hearing both parties.

What happened was that, Magistrate Coppini had given temporary custody, in an in camera judgement, to his client after upholding the application. Soon after, Mr Xuereb filed an application contesting the fact that he had not been notified of the application and had not been heard by the court. This led to a long evening sitting when the court amended the original ruling.

During legal submissions, Dr Giglio said that for a person to be convicted of perjury, wilful lying had to be proved, and this was not the case here.

Dr Said said he was not present during the in camera decree but was present for the evening sitting.

Dr Roberto Montalto represented Mr Xuereb.

The case was put off for judgement on October 28.