Yorgen Fenech claims fair trial breach by public inquiry

Yorgen Fenech, the businessman accused of orchestrating the murder of journalist Daphne Caurana Galizia has claimed that the Public Inquiry appointed in the wake of the murder is prejudicing his fair trial rights

In a note of observations filed before the board yesterday, Fenech’s lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran, Marion Camilleri and Charles Mercieca, said the man’s rights had been “repeatedly ignored and breached” by the board. They began by pointing out that only a “censored selection” of notes and witness transcripts from the board’s sittings are made available to Fenech.

Although the board had declared that it would be following the procedure laid down in the Civil Code, “the practise adopted by the board during the proceedings showed us different,” they said, arguing that “suggestive questions, sarcasm, political aims” showed prejudice on the part of the judges and had no basis in the Code or the Terms of Reference for the Board of Inquiry.

They argued that in October 2020 Fenech had presented an application before the Board, explaining that the procedures it was adopting were causing serious prejudice to the compilation of evidence against him. Fenech had no legal representatives before the Board and his requests to it for a copy of all the evidence tabled before it had been ignored, he said.

Later that month, he had made a separate request, for transcripts of testimony delivered behind closed doors, in particular testimony in which he is mentioned. The Board had subsequently appointed a sitting for the request, hearing the oral submissions of the Caruana Galizia family without giving him the opportunity to reply or make his own submissions, before proceeding to judgment, said the lawyers.

Fenech says he has, “to this day” not been made aware of any decision in this regard.

Fenech also lamented the fact that he had no right of legal representation during the proceedings and that this had persisted throughout the course of the inquiry.

The parte civile, had “made the public inquiry its own” and using “special powers, almost dictated the agenda of the Board,” besides having access to privileged and secret information.

This led to the proceedings being used for political and personal agendas to Fenech’s prejudice, he said, claiming that evidence banned from publication by the Courts of Magistrates – such as the contents of certain mobile phone messages- were allowed to be used in public without any controls. This besides instances where testimony dealt directly with Fenech, who could not reply or contradict the witness.

In addition to this, Fenech’s lawyers said that several questions had been “designed with a political aim” and had not fallen within the Terms of Reference of the inquiry.

They noted that the Board had persisted in referring to Fenech as the “mastermind” of the murder, an allegation which Fenech “strenuously denies.” This goes contrary to the presumption of innocence and the principles of natural justice, they said.

Fenech argued that he was not a politician and never held public office and therefore fell outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. As a result, any reference to him should not be part of the Board’s conclusions, said his lawyers, submitting that the Board should make “no reference to him in the report, in order to stop the breach of his right to a fair hearing.”