Yorgen Fenech bid to stop statements being used as evidence dismissed by court
Lawyers argued that Fenech was vulnerable and lacked complete control over his free will because he was under the influence of cocaine
The Constitutional Court has rejected a bid by Yorgen Fenech to stop statements he made to the police in 2019 from being used as evidence in his trial for complicity in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
The court, presided by Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, alongside judges Robert G. Mangion and Josette Demicoli dismissed Fenech's appeal against the Commissioner of Police and the State Advocate, ordering him to bear the costs of the case.
Fenech's legal battle centered on interrogations that took place on November 29 and 30, 2019, shortly after his arrest. His defence team argued that during those interviews, Fenech was highly vulnerable and lacked complete control over his free will because he was heavily under the influence of cocaine. They claimed that use of those statements would violate his fundamental right to a fair hearing.
Fenech ultimately petitioned the court to ban the statements from being produced or referenced during his upcoming trial by jury.
However, the Constitutional Court echoed the sentiments of the First Hall of the Civil Court, which had dismissed Fenech's requests in September 2025. The judges firmly stated that constitutional cases should never be used simply as another avenue to appeal decisions already settled by the criminal courts.
The court noted that Fenech had already been given the opportunity to present evidence regarding his state of mind during the criminal proceedings. In fact, medical files reviewed by the Criminal Court in 2022 revealed that Fenech was "medically composed" during the interrogations, exhibiting no withdrawal symptoms or signs of pain.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Fenech was highly coherent, understood his surroundings, and even directed the flow of the investigators' questions.
The court pointed out that Fenech was also assisted by two lawyers throughout the interrogations and at no point did they attempt to halt the interview due to their client allegedly being incapacitated by drugs or poor health.
Fenech had even admitted to investigators that his drug habit was in the past, without indicating he was under the influence at that moment.
However, Fenech's lawyers argued that police statements are considered the "queen of evidence" in criminal law, making this specific episode so decisive that the Constitutional Court needed to intervene before the trial.
Despite this, the court rejected the argument, citing established legal doctrine that claims regarding a fair hearing must generally be evaluated by looking at the trial "as a whole" once it concludes. The judges stated that intervening at this preliminary stage would be entirely premature. The court reassured that Fenech’s rights remain protected within the ordinary criminal justice system.