Degiorgio brothers kept on witness list for Yorgen Fenech's upcoming trial
Court of Appeal rejects Fenech's attempt to remove brothers from the witness list
Convicted killers George and Alfred Degiorgio will be on the witness list for Yorgen Fenech’s upcoming trial, after a court of appeal denied Fenech's attempt to have them removed.
Fenech stands accused of complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed by the Degiorgio brothers and Vince Muscat. No trial date has been set.
In a judgment handed down on Tuesday by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the court confirmed an earlier ruling that denied Fenech’s previous attempt to lodge a fresh objection to including the Degiorgio brothers on the witness list.
The Degiorgio brothers are currently serving their 40-year prison term for the murder of Caruana Galizia. Muscat, who turned state's witness, is serving a 15-year term. Melvin Theuma, who says he acted as a murder middleman, obtained a presidential pardon to testify against them and Fenech.
The Degiorgio brothers were added to the witness list in 2024, but they had refused to testify during the compilation of evidence stage.
The judgment stated that in September 2024, a Criminal Court ruled that, although they refused to testify, they could still be called to testify during the trial.
In February, Fenech’s legal team filed a court application raising a new objection, requesting the removal of the brothers from the witness list. The court noted that this was a late objection, and for it to be valid, a new reason would have had to be presented.
In March, the court rejected Fenech’s request. Allowing the brothers to testify in the jury trial did not constitute a new reason that would permit a late objection, it decreed.
Following this, Fenech filed a request to revoke the decree, but it was turned down by the court again. As such, Fenech appealed both rejections to the Court of Criminal Appeal in June.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s original decree and stated that decisions taken by courts could never be considered “valid reasons” to raise new objections.