Judge dismisses Vince Muscat’s allegations of “hidden conspiracy” behind the 2020 refusal of amnesty

The judge dismissed the proceedings filed by Vince Muscat two years ago, alleging the conspiracy behind the decision to deny some of the amnesty claims.

Muscat, the only man imprisoned for the murder of Daphne Karooana Galicia, claimed that his request for amnesty was denied in order to protect the “hidden interests” of third parties, including politicians.

The first hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Judge Francesco Depasquale, ruled this morning in a case in which Muscat filed a lawsuit against the Prime Minister, police chief, prosecutor-general and state in September 2020. Advocate and Minister of Justice.

In a court application, Muscat provided police with a wealth of information and identified “a network of prominent and non-prominent figures by those who have not been involved in the assassination or other crimes of Daphne Kahlua Anagaritia.” Insisted. Who is mentioned or prosecuted and leads to the complete truth in the resolution of some of these cases. ”

He said the information was communicated during the course of several meetings in January 2020. However, Muscat said police inspectors investigating the Kahlua Galicia murder during the months from February to September 2020 should not see him again to conclude a report on this information. “I’m making excuses,” he insisted.

Muscat claims to have given all the information it had about the murder and other crimes of Caruana Galicia, and investigators said, “For the hidden benefit of third parties, some celebrities and those who do not. , Some politicians were involved. ” In crime. “

He said that the cause of this delayed tactic was that investigators were not allowed to work for fear or threat, or that “the whole truth could affect the stability of the current government administration, and as a result, they. In their negligence, they may be protecting some individuals or individuals by hiding their actions. “

A Muscat lawyer said in a court application in September 2020 that he had made several attempts to contact Cheong Wa Dae but did not respond.

He argued that this was not a simple bureaucracy, but an “further attempt to protect certain prominent individuals and third parties that had not yet been investigated.” He claimed that these individuals were part of a “small circle of powerful people.”

State defenders, the Attorney General, and the Attorney General have submitted responses to this application, the request being virtually for the granting of a presidential amnesty or other judicial review, and on issues regulated by the Constitution. Claimed to be. It was not subject to scrutiny by any court in connection with the actions taken by the President of Malta. “Above all, the privilege of mercy is not itself subject to examination.”

The Constitution allows the president to exercise the king’s amnesty, but “certainly … does not give those involved in the crime the right to amnesty. The information allegedly provided is not supported by other evidence. Especially in the case. ” It was discussed.

On October 9, 2020, the Prime Minister also alleged that he was not a legitimate defendant in the proceedings and submitted a reply demanding that he be ineligible.

On February 19, 2021, Vince Muscat requested that his testimony be recorded electronically and that the court be allowed to testify in a closed room the next 24 days. These demands were upheld.

However, when seating began on February 24, the court pleaded guilty to the criminal court for the murder of Daphne Karooana Galicia the day before, and Carmel Chilcopp.

Despite these developments, his lawyer told the court that his client separately demanded amnesty related to other crimes and demanded the continuation of the proceedings.

This was opposed by state supporters who claimed that Muscat no longer had judicial interest in the case, as Muscat now admitted his guilt and was actually amnesty. rice field.

In a ruling dismissing Muscat’s proceedings, the court stated that the law was clear and uninterpretable in that the president’s decision on amnesty was not subject to any kind of scrutiny by the court. Judge Depasquale said the judicial interpretation of relevant provisions of the Constitution had been consistent for the past two decades.

Judges expect the sacred right to presidential amnesty, as the applicant appears to be claiming with a former legal counsel, despite the seriousness of the crime under investigation. He added that it shouldn’t be.

Muscat uses this presumption “as part of a guess, with the help of the media, who are always hungry for stories and publicity, solely for the purpose of avoiding his liability for the criminal acts he has committed or participated in.” I couldn’t do it either.

A country governed by the rule of law, such as Malta, expects anyone who commits a crime to ultimately answer his criminal activity and be guilty if sufficient evidence is found. ..

Only in this way is respect for the law guaranteed and can be observed by all. And if that person chooses to assist the prosecution to convict another person, he is free to do so at any time, which may be reflected in the final decision. “

“If the court really wants to help the police resolve a crime for which the applicant has his information, nothing prevents him from actually providing this information to the court of jurisdiction as needed. No, so I have to admit that justice will eventually rule .. The applicant does not need the president’s amnesty to testify-if he really cooperates and helps! “

The judge dismissed all Muscat’s allegations and ordered him to bear the costs of the case. Judge dismisses Vince Muscat’s allegations of “hidden conspiracy” behind the 2020 refusal of amnesty

Show More
Back to top button