Yesterday’s Court reporting about the ongoing trial of Yorgen Fenech, accused of commissioning the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, and details of the testimony of the Prosecution’s witness were marred and disrupted by technical points raised by the accused’s defence.
These included points of law about the jurors having news headlines accessible on their tablets, Inspector Kurt ลปahra having followed media coverage while still testifying, and repeated objections to Andrew Caruana Galiziaโs testimony, with the defence arguing that parts of his evidence concerning Electrogas and Siemens amounted to hearsay, opinion or new evidence that had not previously been presented in the proceedings.
The defence has also consistently been bringing up the publication of Yorgen Fenech’s chats in the press, with the Court sending us letters and warnings as a consequence. This is not to exclude the Prosecutor’s misgivings.
Throughout these points of order, Judge Edwina Grima never seems to adjudicate and persistently gives way to the defence, effectively disrupting proceedings, as happened yesterday. I have yet to read any serious legal analysis about the behaviour of the defence and whether the defence is actually legally correct at all to bring up these points and consistently threaten to disrupt and even derail the trial through points of law.
The Judge so far seems to have been very sympathetic to the defence’s series of grievances.
At the same time, this also puts no good light on the defendant, whose only main weapons of defence that he has been using are that he was framed and compelled to pay the Degiorgio Brothers by Keith Schembri because he was scared, and the litany of points of order about the trial, including the publication of his chats. That’s a very feeble defence, if you would ask me.
Leave a Reply