Judge’s decision to comment on UK law firm’s opinion in Caruana Galizia case premature – Kevin Aquilina
Dean of the Faculty of Law Kevin Aquilina has criticised Mr Justice Silvio Meli’s decision to comment on a British law firm’s opinion regarding the human right of the Caruana Galizia family, stating that such comments were made at a premature stage.
Mr Justice Meli is presiding over a Constitutional case instituted by the widower and children of slain journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia for the removal of deputy police commissioner Silvio Valletta from the investigation into her assassination.
The services of UK law firm Doughty Street Chambers were sought by the Caruana Galizia family. The firm had advised the family that the investigation into the assassination violates procedural requirements of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr Justice Meli, on Tuesday, described the British law firm’s opinion, that the Caruana Galizia family’s human rights have been breached, as a “manipulative orchestration” aimed at undermining Malta’s rule of law and to influence the judiciary. Interviewed by The Malta Independent editor-in-chief Rachel Attard, and asked whether the judge should have criticised the move and if he believes the judge should have acted in that way, Aquilina said that if he was the judge he would not express himself on these issues, “more so if the document in question is not presented as evidence in court. At that stage I would have left things as they were, in the sense that I would have tried to mediate - as in fact he did - giving the parties the opportunity to try and agree and arrange the case between them. Then if no agreement is found the evidence would begin to be heard and then one can go into that advice, but I think it was a bit premature to express oneself on the advice when it was not yet produced and exhibited in the acts of the case.”
Pressed on whether the magistrate had a right to express himself, Aquilina said the judge “has every right, but in the judgement.”
He questioned why the family went to England stating that there are Maltese human rights lawyers capable of giving such advice.
“But since 1995 the code of organisation and civil procedure permits parties to bring, ex parte, expert evidence. So I find no difficulty in, for example, them going to England or another country to bring that kind of proof if they deem it relevant to their case.
“But if it was me, I would not have gone for a foreign lawyer but would have sought advice from a Maltese lawyer as I am sure there are Maltese lawyers who are competent when it comes to human rights.”
Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed in a car bomb on 16 October metres away from her Bidnija residence. Three men have been arraigned in court as the prime suspects.
Deputy Police Commissioner Valletta is married to government Minister for Gozo Justyne Caruana and also sits on the board of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit, an entity that has been subject to massive controversy and accusations of incompetence after the slain journalist had broken the Panama Papers revelations and later made allegations about the Prime Minister’s wife.
On behalf of the UK law firm, Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jonathan Price said, “we are of the firm view that Malta is in flagrant violation of the Article 2 investigative duty and thus in breach of its obligations under the ECHR,” and that, “from the information available at this stage it appears highly likely to us that the Maltese authorities have also violated other human rights of Ms Caruana Galizia and the bereaved family, under Articles 2, 3, 8, 10 and/ or 13 ECHR (and indeed under other international human rights treaties and domestic law).”
Mr Justice Meli had said that, “we have to realise that Malta is an independent country in the European Union like all the others and I will not be impressed by any group of English lawyers. The fact remains that this had a big effect on Malta society.” The full INDEPTH programme can be seen today on www.independent.com.mt