The GSD says the Attorney General's decision to stop a prosecution, in respect of the 36 North-Bland case, "raises serious questions".

A statement from the GSD follows below:

Has evidence that is politically uncomfortable or damaging to Ministers been buried? The announcement that the  Attorney General has stopped a prosecution in respect of the 36 North-Bland case on publicly undisclosed “public  interest” grounds raises serious questions as to the effect of that decision. This is especially the case when the Attorney  General has also stated that there was apparently in his view a “realistic prospect of conviction.” 

This is a case which among others involved a senior official who worked closely with Ministers and concerned high value contracts with the Government. The case has been ongoing since 2020. It would likely have kicked up evidence  of discussions with Ministers including the Chief Minister. It is an open secret that this case may give rise to evidence  linked to wider politically uncomfortable matters that remain pending or on which the shield of public interest has also  been invoked such as the early departure of Commissioner McGrail. There is a public interest in ensuring that the  Executive are not protected from uncomfortable evidence. 

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi said: “People may feel that the effect (if not the intention) of this decision is  to bury evidence that was politically uncomfortable to Ministers. The halting of the prosecution would now prevent the emergence of any such uncomfortable evidence in full public view. That is also a matter of public interest and does  not serve the interests of democracy or accountability. If there may have been, for example, sensitive material that  was to be revealed in Court the public would want to know why there was no attempt to seek a ruling to hear part of  the proceedings in private or under protective measures for the giving of sensitive evidence instead. It may be that  the prosecution would have failed anyway but the effect of halting a prosecution like this cannot be that Ministers are  protected from uncomfortable or politically damaging evidence. Ministers should not benefit from public interest  decisions.” 

As we have pointed out in the Commissioner McGrail case when the public interest is invoked to prevent disclosures  there is a competing public interest to ensure that what happens also takes into account the wider protection of our  democracy and constitutional checks and balances. The same issues arise when a prosecution is halted in the public  interest and its effect is that damaging or politically uncomfortable evidence to Ministers is buried. The presence of  such matters should also have been considered as part of that judgment of what to do in this case and the exercise of  the public interest. 

This afternoon the Attorney General asked to see the Leader of the Opposition about this matter. Mr Llamas QC  explained to Mr Azopardi the basis on which he had taken the decision. Mr Azopardi made it clear to the Attorney  General that it seemed to him that the effect of such a decision would be that evidence that might have emerged in  the case that was damaging or politically uncomfortable to individual Ministers or the political Government would be  buried. The Attorney General insisted that was not the basis on which his decision had been taken. The Leader of the  Opposition told the Attorney General that this was, in his view, how it could be seen and the effect of it and that it  seemed to him that those issues had not been properly balanced in the public interest.