Court delays testimony in HSBC heist libel case as Carmelo Abela’s nomination for speaker proceeds

During a constitutional court hearing in a case filed by criminal lawyer Jason Azzopardi, Madam Justice Miriam Hayman postponed hearing the testimony of William Cuschieri, the former lawyer of convicted hitmen Alfred and George Degiorgio, until October.

Cuschieri was the defence lawyer for the Degiorgio brothers, who were found guilty of sourcing the bomb that killed journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Azzopardi’s application to the constitutional court was made after an unsuccessful attempt at overturning a libel case filed against him by then-Labour MP Carmelo Abela, who was awarded €7,000 in moral damages after the court of appeal found that Azzopardi had not proven his accusations beyond reasonable doubt.

The hearing was set to be particularly relevant in the context of Abela’s nomination for Speaker of the House of Representatives, which the prime minister is set to formally move forward during the first session of parliament’s fifteenth legislature, starting on Saturday.

Cuschieri’s testimony, scheduled for Friday at noon, was postponed after Madam Justice Hayman informed those in the hall that the court had not yet decided whether it would be heard in public or behind closed doors.

The court’s decision to postpone effectively means that Abela’s nomination will go ahead while constitutional court proceedings centred around allegations about him are ongoing.

“For reasons which are so obvious that I need not say it out loud… we will be leaving the case for another day. We will see what the witness feels most comfortable with,” Madam Justice Hayman said.

In 2019, Azzopardi publicly accused Abela of abetting the infamous 2010 HSBC heist, a crime in which the Degiorgio brothers were involved. Abela, who was employed with the bank at the time, denied any involvement.

Lawyers appearing on behalf of the office of the state advocate noted that they rejected the applicant’s request for Cuschieri’s testimony on the grounds that it would amount to delving into the merits of a case already decided by the criminal court and the court of appeal.

State advocate lawyers also argued that Cuschieri’s testimony about his conversations with the Degiorgio brothers would effectively amount to hearsay, since the brothers had already waived Cuschieri’s confidentiality obligation.

The applicant’s lawyer, Joe Zammit Maempel, argued that Cuschieri’s testimony was vital to the case because the information to be submitted to court could not be disclosed during libel proceedings.

“In any case, in a constitutional case, it is permissible to put forward any proof which the applicant believes is relevant to the case. It is up to the court to decide whether the evidence is admissible or not,” Zammit Maempel added.