Disgraced former Police Commissioner accused of lying under oath, discussed court testimony with Melvin Theuma’s confidante

Disgraced former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar was accused of lying under oath and of being corrupt on Monday afternoon after a wiretapped phone call contradicted his claim that he had not discussed the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder case with anyone before testifying in separate proceedings.

Cutajar, who led the police force during the murder investigation and is now facing criminal proceedings over an alleged leak of official secrets, was testifying in Yorgen Fenech’s trial by jury.

Fenech stands charged with complicity in Caruana Galizia’s voluntary homicide and criminal association. He denies the charges.

Earlier in his testimony, Cutajar told the court he had not spoken to anyone about the case before testifying in July 2020. He said he did not think he had kept contact with Edwin Brincat, known as il-Ġojja, Melvin Theuma’s longtime friend and mentor.

But the prosecution then referred him to a wiretapped call between Cutajar and Brincat, recorded on 14 June 2020, more than a month before Cutajar testified in the compilation of evidence.

The same call had already been used during Brincat’s cross-examination.

The defence initially objected to the prosecution’s attempt to confront its own witness with the recording, arguing that this was not a matter of refreshing Cutajar’s memory. The defence argued that the issue went directly to Cutajar’s credibility, because he had denied discussing the case when the call showed otherwise.

After the recording was played in court, Cutajar said he did not remember when the call had happened.

Asked why he had felt the need to discuss those episodes before testifying, he insisted the call did not show him revealing investigative information – a line he would stick to throughout the rest of his testimony.

“What I want to say is that the primary aim of the investigation after the first arrests was to find these tapes. I did everything I could to do that,” Cutajar said. “I confirm, like the call confirms, that I didn’t reveal anything about the outcome of the investigation.”

De Marco then asked him directly: “Why did you feel the need to lie under oath today?”

“Where did I lie under oath? I forgot about the phone call,” Cutajar replied. “I am not denying the call. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with the call.”

The call’s most damning extracts show Cutajar and Brincat discussing how to remain “on the same line” before testimony.

At one point, Cutajar was heard telling Brincat: “No, that line: I’m sticking to the same line, because this didn’t compromise us at all. The information came out about who told him, and they still kept trying to pin it on us…”

Another excerpt captured Cutajar complaining: “They fucked up my consultancy, but things need to be cleared up, because they can’t just keep making things up…”

Cutajar became ‘consultant’ same day he left police commissioner role

Giannella DeMarco put it to Cutajar that he and Brincat were planning their testimonies together. Cutajar denied this, saying the “line” he referred to was “the line of the truth”.

The defence pointed out that the word “truth” was not used during the 15-minute call, while Cutajar was heard discussing how many times he and Brincat had met.

Cutajar also appeared to struggle when pressed over remarks in which he allegedly implied that Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud had updated him after he left the force.

“It was bluff. Arnaud never told me anything. I never spoke to Arnaud after I left the police force,” Cutajar said.

When pressed further on whether he had lied about Arnaud, Cutajar said he could not understand the context and later said he could not confirm or deny the questions he was facing.

The cross-examination also exposed a wider contradiction in Cutajar’s account of his own conduct during the investigation.

Earlier, he told jurors that police had decided against arresting Theuma too early because doing so could have “shown our hand” and left investigators with nothing. He presented that decision as a careful strategic choice, saying the police needed stronger grounds before moving in.

Yet Cutajar also admitted that, around May 2019, he used Brincat’s traffic contravention as “bait” to probe him about Theuma’s secret recordings.

“My ‘bait’ was the contravention,” Cutajar said, adding that he tried to “get into his head” about what Brincat knew.

The defence asked why, if Cutajar was so concerned about not tipping off Theuma, he told Theuma’s close friend that police knew about the recordings.

Cutajar described the move as a “calculated risk”.

“I never had the intent to ask Edwin Brincat about the tapes. The opportunity presented itself and my instinct told me to take a calculated risk,” he said.

He repeatedly insisted he had done nothing wrong and that the tapes were ultimately found.

“Like I said, I was chasing him for information all the time. I didn’t give up on it, and I will not be ashamed of it… because at the end of the day, were the investigation’s aims achieved? Did we get the tapes? I can stop there,” Cutajar said.

De Marco accused him of being caught “red-handed”, telling him that police witnesses had already testified he had not voluntarily disclosed his contact with Brincat.

Cutajar denied this, saying he did not remember being told he had jeopardised the case or that he had done anything wrong.

“I never revealed any information about the investigation, to anyone,” he said.

The trial continues on Tuesday morning.