Statements made by a man eight years ago, when he was under suspicion for attempting to murder his partner’s baby, may not be considered as evidence against him since they were made without legal assistance, a court has declared.

The now 34-year old man, whose name has been banned from publication ever since his arraignment in 2014, stands accused of attempting to murder the 10-month old baby, seriously injuring the child as well as possessing cocaine and cannabis.

Both the man and the baby’s mother were arraigned, both pleading not guilty to the charges.

The baby girl suffered serious head and leg injuries when she was allegedly thrown into her cot.

Following the alleged incident, the baby ended up in hospital, battling for life.

The prosecution had also informed the court about a previous court order issued against the accused in view of the poor living conditions to which the infant was being subjected.

While criminal proceedings continue, the man’s lawyers minuted a request to have the statements he made almost eight years ago, immediately after the alleged incident, to be discarded by the court when delivering judgment.

The man had released two statements, first before the court-appointed expert and subsequently during police interrogation.

His first testimony under oath was given on September 12, 2014  at police Headquarters before a court-appointed expert and two police officers.

Although at that point he was already under suspicion and was, in fact, cautioned and given the right to silence, there was no evidence that he was granted the right to consult a lawyer, observed Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit when deciding upon the defence’s request.

On September 13, the man released another statement before two police officers, where he answered all questions and changed his version, allegedly shifting the blame upon his partner, claiming that it was she who had hurt the baby.

In 2014, Maltese law did not grant suspects the right to be assisted by a lawyer during interrogation, but it did provide for a maximum one-hour consultation with a lawyer before releasing a statement.

The right to legal assistance both before and during interrogation was introduced in 2016.

However, in this case, the records showed that the accused was given no such right before releasing his statements.

The court delved into a long line of local and European court caselaw, the last of which concerned the case of kidney transplant patient Christopher Bartolo with the latest judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in April.

In that case, Bartolo had released his statement without any legal assistance and at a time when he was seriously ill and thus considered as vulnerable.

Turning to the case in hand, Magistrate Stafrace Zammit observed that the accused had been granted no right to consult a lawyer before testifying before the court expert, even though police were well aware that he had consumed drugs before the alleged incident.

Therefore, he could be considered as vulnerable and there was no doubt that his first statement was to be discarded, the court said.

As for his second statement the next day, police claimed that he had refused the right to legal assistance.

But the court observed that there was nothing in the records to prove this and the two officers involved in that interrogation did not corroborate each other on this point.

The statement itself only recorded the right to remain silent and therefore, anything else not included in the records of the case could not be considered as true.

In light of such considerations the accused’s second statement could also not be considered in evidence for judgment purposes, the court decreed, thus upholding the defence’s request.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Francesca Zarb are defence counsel.