Story Highlight
– Labour celebrates as key witness Harbinson won’t testify.
– Harbinson expresses fear for his safety in Malta.
– Prosecution case weakens without Harbinson’s testimony.
– Defence lawyers objected to remote testimony from Harbinson.
– Witness intimidation by Labour contributes to Harbinson’s retreat.
Full Story
Labour is marking a significant achievement following the announcement that Jeremy Harbinson, a central witness in the case against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, will not be compelled to testify by UK authorities. This development raises serious questions about the future of the prosecution’s case, which appears to hinge largely on Harbinson’s testimony.
Harbinson, described as a pivotal figure in the proceedings, expressed concerns for his safety well ahead of this latest decision. In statements made earlier this year, he described feeling threatened, saying, “I fear for my safety…I have decided that I will never return to Malta.” His apprehensions have evidently been exacerbated by his treatment in the media and various public attacks directed at him, particularly from Labour party officials. The pro-Labour media outlet ONE has waged an extensive campaign against him, broadcasting over sixty critical reports about Harbinson within a few months, with a significant number displaying his image prominently.
As the inquiry progressed, Muscat publicly attempted to undermine the judicial process and the integrity of the experts involved. Prime Minister Robert Abela has been particularly vocal, disparaging Harbinson during an interview, where he accused the magistrate leading the inquiry of what he termed “political terrorism,” while also chastising her for conducting a search of Muscat’s property.
The impact of this intense scrutiny and intimidation has taken a toll on Harbinson’s mental well-being, affecting both him and his wife. During his involvement in the case, he faced alarming incidents, including a break-in at his hotel room in Malta, where his passport was stolen. Harbinson indicated that this experience served as a stark reminder of the risks he faced, characterising it metaphorically as akin to finding “a horse’s head in your bed.”
With the prosecution’s reliance nearly entirely on Harbinson’s report, the absence of his testimony critically undermines the foundation of their case against Muscat. In a recent court session, following Harbinson’s announcement that he would not return to Malta, the prosecution sought permission to enable video testimony from him, hoping to circumvent his refusal to appear in person. This proposal incited outrage among Muscat’s defence team, who argued that remote testimony would infringe upon their client’s right to a fair trial. Nevertheless, the court sided with the prosecution, labelling Harbinson’s potential evidence as “indispensable.”
However, with news now that the UK authorities have officially communicated they will not pursue Harbinson, the situation has shifted dramatically. Authorities informed the Attorney General’s office that they consider the matter effectively closed. Harbinson submitted an affidavit outlining why he could not testify, and law enforcement accepted his reasoning, though the specifics of this are not disclosed. It has been reported, however, that he has fled to an undisclosed location, citing fears for his safety due to ongoing threats.
The implications of Harbinson’s absence from court are significant. Following his non-appearance, a fine of €500 was imposed on him, amid clamouring from Labour-aligned media for further legal action. The Attorney General’s office has since indicated it will request that the court take necessary steps regarding the situation. One of the lawyers for Muscat’s defence has called for the court to evaluate whether Harbinson’s actions breach legal protocols, suggesting potential consequences that could include arrest or incarceration.
Despite these pressures, Harbinson remains resolute in his stance. He has openly declared he will not return to Malta nor provide testimony, which illustrates the extreme distress and fear he is experiencing. He is acutely aware that any evidence he might present could lead to significant repercussions—not just for Muscat but for his own safety. Harbinson has previously asserted the quality of his report, maintaining, “the report to the inquiry was of the highest quality and I stand behind the findings and opinions set out in it.”
The situation has raised an uncomfortable dialogue regarding the treatment of witnesses in politically charged cases. Despite calls for accountability against Harbinson, none have emerged to address the persistent intimidation he has faced, which many observers attribute to Labour’s ongoing campaign against him. Abela’s role has been particularly scrutinised, as he continues to discredit not only Harbinson but the entire prosecution effort. The lack of eyewitness protection for Harbinson is alarming and reflects broader concerns about the security of individuals who emerge with uncomfortable truths against well-connected political figures.
As the case continues, it remains uncertain what the next steps will be. Harbinson’s flight from the jurisdiction underscores the perilous state of witness interactions in Malta, particularly in high-profile political situations. It stands as a testament to the challenges faced by those who dare to expose malfeasance among the elite, with the warning message being stark and clear—testifying can come at a grave personal cost.
For Labour, this outcome can be seen as a significant triumph, with their strategy of witness intimidation appearing to successfully deter Harbinson from proceeding to court. The ramifications of this victory for both the case against Muscat and the broader political landscape in Malta are yet to be fully understood, but it undeniably sets a concerning precedent for the treatment of witnesses in future inquiries.
Our Thoughts
The article discusses the intimidation faced by key witness Jeremy Harbinson in a high-profile case against Joseph Muscat, ultimately leading to Harbinson’s refusal to testify. To prevent such incidents, several safety lessons can be gleaned.
Firstly, proper protective measures for witnesses, as outlined in the UK Witness Protection Scheme, should have been enacted to ensure Harbinson’s safety amidst threats and harassment. Witness intimidation is a significant breach of the legal process and undermines the integrity of trials.
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 mandates that all employers, including legal authorities, have a duty to ensure the safety of individuals involved in legal proceedings. This includes adequate risk assessments to identify and mitigate threats to witnesses.
Moreover, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime suggests that victims and witnesses should be provided with adequate support and accommodations in facing their fears and threats. Failing to advocate for Harbinson’s protection highlights a systemic lapse in applying these regulations effectively.
To guard against similar incidents, authorities must adopt proactive strategies for witness safety and foster an environment where testimonies can be given without fear of retribution, ensuring justice prevails.
