A constitutional court has declared that the Degiorgio brothers, convicted of killing journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, did not have their right to a fair hearing breached when they had legal aid lawyers appointed after they did not manage to find trusted lawyers to represent them.

George and Alfred Degiorgio filed the constitutional case complaining that they had been wronged when a legal advisor from the Legal Aid Agency was "imposed" on them after their lawyer had renounced the case.

They also complained that the new lawyers were not given sufficient time to examine the court documentation and were therefore not in a position to assist and defend them in the best possible way. They pleaded guilty to the charges brought against them and were each sentenced to 40 years in jail.

But in a detailed judgment, Madam Justice Audrey Demicoli threw out their case, ruling that it found nothing wrong with the way the criminal court dealt with them, assigning legal representation when they were finding it difficult to find a lawyer willing to represent them. This, along with extending the time for them to prepare a defence by twenty days more than the term established in the law, ensured the “overall fairness of the proceedings”, the judge ruled.

In their application, the two brothers argued that they were disadvantaged because their lawyer had renounced the brief weeks before the trial, while the prosecution was fully prepared for the final leg of the case.

All their attempts to find another lawyer of choice proved futile since no lawyer would take on such a feat and consequently, the Degiorgios were each given a legal aid lawyer – Simon Micallef Stafrace and Martin Farrugia.

But the voluminous evidence compiled throughout the years – more than 15,000 physical and 77,000 electronic documents - made it practically impossible for any lawyer to set up an adequate defence, they claimed.

The Degiorgio brothers also complained that their right to a fair hearing was also breached by the extensive media coverage given to their case, meaning that jurors were never in a position to be impartial.

In her considerations, Madam Justice Demicoli noted that the criminal court had twice postponed the start of their trial, giving them time to find a lawyer who was ready to take on their case and represent them in court.

She said this showed that the court had not rushed to appoint legal aid lawyers but had only done so “as a last resort” because it could not keep postponing the start of the trial in the interest of the principle that justice must be done within a reasonable time.

Once the criminal court gave them time to hire a lawyer of their choice, which by their own admission they did not succeed, the court had sufficient grounds to appoint legal aid lawyers, the judge ruled.

On the claim that the lawyers did not have enough time to study the case documents, the court noted that they had 40 days to do this. While this was not ideal, the court ruled that this time was sufficient and therefore turned down their claims.