Lawyers for a building contractor charged over the workplace incident of Jaiteh Lamin described footage capturing the moment of the fall as “20 seconds of truth.”

That footage was presented in ongoing proceedings against Glen Farrugia, director of J&G Farrugia contractors. He is pleading not guilty to the September incident during which Lamin suffered grievous bodily harm before being dumped on Selmun Road.

Farrugia is also facing charges over various breaches of employment and health and safety laws.

A court-appointed IT expert presented the footage along with his report and a sealed digital video recorder. He was testifying about the footage that captured the exact moment when the worker fell from the edge of the scaffolding at the construction site on Triq Dun Frangisk Sciberras, Mellieha.

"The migrant worker first jumped down from a higher level, then walked towards the edge of the structure three times, looking downwards “as though searching for something,” Keith Cutajar said.

The video shows Lamin stepping onto a supporting structure which he called “the point of failure”. Cutajar however said that the footage "did not provide visibility of the void into which the victim had fallen".

Defence lawyer Franco Debono sought to question the expert about the victim’s movements prior to the fall, prompting parte civile lawyer Gianluca Cappitta to point out that “it was all preserved on video.” 

Debono also requested court authorisation to air that footage in open court at the next sitting and then put further questions to the victim himself.

His request triggered an animated argument. 

“We all saw the footage. There was a degree of risk,” argued Debono, voicing the position of Farrugia’s defence team.

“That’s an opinion,” rebutted the victim’s lawyer.

“Going to the edge three times is a fact, not an opinion,” countered Debono, insisting that the footage offered a “tremendous benefit” by showing the exact moment of the incident. 

That footage presented “20 seconds of truth,” added defence lawyer Matthew Xuereb, questioning the prosecution’s position in that regard. 

But presiding magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia intervened, firmly pointing out that the defence had every right to cross-examine the victim without having the video aired in court.

'Footage speaks for itself'

The footage spoke for itself and a copy thereof was also available to the victim, the court said.

The defence did not simply want to question Lamin about what he recalled of his incident but wanted to put questions about the sequence captured on video.

“Of course he’s been through a trauma. He might have forgotten,” insisted Debono, pointing out that the movements appeared to indicate “great risk” on the victim’s part. 

Whilst not objecting to the footage, nor the defence’s right to cross-examination, Cappitta voiced objection to “presumptions” by the accused’s awyers. 

“Could it be that the video shows that the victim actually fell down a different height,” asked Xuereb, adding that the fall appeared to have been “ten courses”, namely one-storey high. 

Since that footage showed the victim’s exact position at the moment the scaffolding collapsed, the court could determine the point where he landed, argued Debono, remarking that rules of physics could not be defied.

The issue appeared to be whether the victim had fallen on one side or another of a particular wall.

“It’s not as clear as the defence is making out,” argued the victim’s lawyer.

'Second onsite inspection'

A second onsite inspection in the presence of both the IT expert as well as the court-appointed architect was necessary to enable the court to better evaluate the evidence as well as submissions on the merits, declared the magistrate.

The court had also received an application filed by the owners of the construction project seeking court authorisation to proceed with building works, claiming that they would face financial difficulties unless they did.

In the presence of a representative of the developers, lawyer Marie Elise Agius explained that the project, costing some €14 million, was set for completion in shell form early in 2022. 

Unless the works were allowed to proceed, both the owners as well as buyers bound by the promise of sale agreements would face unnecessary hardship, the court was told.

To avoid such difficulties for “innocent third parties” the owners were seeking court authorisation for works to continue.

The matter could be resolved by closing off that area of the building site where the incident took place, while allowing works to proceed in the rest of the site, suggested the accused’s lawyers.

Cappitta said that he would not object as long as such a request did not prejudice the court case. 

Given the technicalities presented by such a request, the court stated that it would only decide upon the issue once it received expert directions from a professional architect to map forward a solution that could be implemented in practice. 

Upon a suggestion by defence lawyer Debono, an initial plan was to be put forward by Farrugia’s own architect to be assessed and scrutinised by the court-appointed architect.

Meanwhile, a second onsite inspection would also depend on Lamin’s health condition.

His lawyer informed the court that although the victim appeared to be “thankfully improving” he still wore a back brace and made use of crutches and a wheelchair since he could not stand for long.

The case continues.

Superintendent Priscilla Caruana Lee prosecuted.

Lawyers Debono, Matthew Xuereb and Lucio Sciriha were defence counsel.

Lawyer Gianluca Cappitta appeared parte civile.