A court of appeal has confirmed that statements released by a man suspected of shooting Baron Francis Sant Cassia back in 1988 are not to be produced in evidence at the murder trial. 

Judgement was delivered on Wednesday upon appeal by the Attorney General in proceedings against Carmel Camilleri, a 66-year-old father of five who was arraigned in 2006 as the suspect who allegedly shot Sant Cassia just outside his Mġarr residence on October 27, 1988. 

Although the murder went unresolved for years, investigators working on a separate case in 2004 had finally targeted Camilleri as the suspected hitman, allegedly promised a sum of money by a third party to carry out the killing. 

The baron was fatally shot in the head the minute he stepped out of his residence.

Upon arraignment eight years later, Camilleri pleaded not guilty to wilful homicide, unlawful possession of a weapon and firing that weapon in an inhabited area. 

A court-appointed psychiatrist reported that although the accused was not mentally unstable, he had a “rather low IQ” and found it difficult to understand and express himself.

The man’s lawyers subsequently challenged the statements he had released to police.

Last year, the Criminal Court, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, had concluded that it was in the interests of justice for those statements to be withdrawn as evidence against the accused.

That position was again taken by the court of appeal which observed that, in 2006, the law did not provide for any form of legal assistance at pre-trial stage. 

Limited access to a lawyer was only introduced in February 2010 and it was only in 2016 that a suspect was granted the right to be assisted by a lawyer both prior to and during interrogation. 

In this case, when Camilleri first went to speak to the police, he was not cautioned since he was not originally viewed as a suspect.

But the second time round, his contradictory statements and altered version changed his position to that of a suspect and that was when the interrogating officer duly cautioned him.

However, “that was too late”, observed the court, because by that time Camilleri had admitted involvement when challenged by the inspector who told him that he was lying.

And all the while, the man had not been given legal advice. 

The court also remarked that it was “perplexed” by the “detailed and flowing account” in the statements when every court expert who had spoken to Camilleri reported that the man struggled to express himself, needed clear explanations and took time to reply. 

Nor could the court understand why only the last statement was recorded.

In that recording the inspector read out the two previous statements and Camilleri replied “yes” and “no”.

Neither the court nor the jurors could hear the accused’s own replies to the questions originally put to him.

Although he was to be legally assisted at the trial, the dangerous imbalance between the accused’s rights and those of society to ensure just handling of the criminal trial could not be rectified.

It would be very risky for the jurors to rely upon those statements when reaching final verdict, concluded the court, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Madam Justice Edwina Grima and Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti. 

The court thus banned every statement and every verbal declaration given by Camilleri without legal assistance as evidence and sent the case back to the Criminal Court for proceedings to continue. 

Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Kris Busietta are defence counsel.