Mohamed Ali Ahmed Elmushraty, better known by his online name Lilu King, remains behind bars “in legal limbo” after a second bid by his lawyers to challenge the validity of his recent arrest proved unsuccessful.

Elmushraty, 32, was arraigned earlier this month over an incident where he allegedly threatened and injured a man during an argument at a Sliema bar.

CCTV footage showed the alleged victim running “for his life” as Elmushraty gave chase.

Elmushraty, who was out on bail over separate criminal proceedings, was subsequently charged with causing his alleged victim slight injuries, breaching the public peace as well as breaching three sets of bail conditions.

He pleaded not guilty but was denied bail.

But the case took an unexpected twist following the testimony of a medico-legal expert who examined both the alleged victim and Elmushraty.

At the first hearing of the case earlier this week, the expert confirmed that the victim’s injuries were certified as grievous since he had suffered a fractured leg and ribs.

Elmushraty suffered slight injuries in the incident.

The prosecution informed the court that the charge sheet needed to be amended, changing the reference to slight injuries caused to the victim, to grievous.

But that correction also changed the competence of the court.

The more serious charge could only be presided by a court of criminal inquiry, rather than a court of criminal jurisdiction.

Both are presided by a magistrate but their competence is different.

Elmushraty’s lawyers argued that since the case would have to be sent back to the Court Registrar to be assigned to a different magistrate, the charges had lapsed and consequently the arrest was no longer valid.

This was not a request for bail but a scenario where there were no charges against Elmushraty, argued defence lawyers Franco Debono and José Herrera.

Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi turned down that argument, declaring that the correction of the charge sheet did not alter the facts in any way.

And since nothing had changed, the court did not find reasons to declare the arrest invalid.

Elmushraty’s lawyers then filed a habeas corpus application, arguing that the defendant was to be immediately released since his ongoing arrest was illegal.

During a lengthy session,  legal arguments were thrashed out before duty Magistrate Leonard Caruana.

“A person is under arrest over proceedings which have not started yet. If this is not illegal arrest, then we don’t know what is,” said Debono, highlighting the fact that the charges would have to be read out again once Elmushraty’s case started again before a different magistrate.

At this stage, Elmushraty was “in legal limbo,” argued the lawyers.

The prosecution countered that the defence should have filed the habeas corpus under a different provision of law, arguing that the court lacked competence to assess the validity of the arrest.

Moreover, the defendant could file a bail request once his case was reassigned to a new magistrate.

“That’s an enormous legal fallacy,” hit back Herrera, arguing that at this stage the defendant had nowhere to turn.

“Lilu currently has no forum to review his arrest.”

Laws of procedure were there to “safeguard a person’s rights,” continued Debono. “Casting aside those, we’d be doing away with everything.”

After hearing submissions Magistrate Caruana observed that Elmushraty faced seven charges. Only one had changed, the rest were still effective.

His arrest had been pronounced valid upon arraignment and so he was now arrested under court authority, rather than police or other public authority.

Moreover the transfer of proceedings from one court to another did not bring about their termination.

And finally, the habeas corpus was a repetition of an identical request put before Magistrate Azzopardi two days before.

The legal and factual circumstances had not changed and the court could not review the decision given by a court of same competence two days previously, concluded Magistrate Caruana.

Superintendent Jurgen Vella and Mario Haber, Inspector Eman Hayman and AG lawyers Kevin Valletta, Valentina Cassar and Dejan Darmanin prosecuted.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Jose’ Herrera, Martina Herrera and Adreana Zammit were defence counsel.