Court turns down Daniel Muka’s request to halt double Sliema murder trial
'The right to defend oneself belongs to the accused, not the lawyer' - the court
The trial into the double murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Maciejowski will continue after a court rejected one of the accused’s requests to suspend proceedings.
Daniel Muka, 30, is standing trial with Viktor Dragomanski over their alleged involvement in the murder of Christian Pandolfino, 58, and Ivor Maciejowski, 30, who were shot dead at their Sliema house on August 18, 2020. They deny the charges.
When the trial began last Monday, Muka had an outburst in the courtroom, objecting to the trial going ahead. He told the court that he had only engaged his lawyer, Mario Mifsud, on June 12 and did not have enough time to prepare.
Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras, who is presiding over the trial, ordered legal aid lawyer Josette Sultana — who had previously represented him — to stay and assist the accused.
The next day, Muka, through his lawyers, filed a constitutional application claiming that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing, as he was not given enough time to prepare a defence for the trial.
On Thursday, the First Hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Henri Mizzi, heard the submissions of both parties regarding Muka’s request to halt the trial.
His lawyer argued that Muka was at a disadvantage as he was not being assisted by a lawyer of his choosing.
Meanwhile, lawyers Julian Farrugia and Maurizio Cordina, appearing on behalf of the State Advocate’s office, pointed out that the trial had already been postponed twice due to Muka’s disputes with his lawyers.
On Friday the court rejected Muka’s request as it did not find enough evidence to prove that Muka’s right to a fair trial had been breached.
The court noted that Muka had never presented any evidence showing efforts to appoint a lawyer earlier.
Although it recognised that Mifsud had only three days to prepare for trial, the court said that the right to defend oneself belongs to the accused, not the lawyer.
“He had, at the very least, since March 1, 2024, to appoint a new lawyer of his choice to represent him during the trial. He also had two months' notice that the trial was going to be held,” the court said.