One of the men accused of supplying the bomb that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia was denied bail on Tuesday following a fresh request to the criminal court nine months since his arrest.

Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti decreed upon the request on Tuesday after hearing Jamie Vella’s lawyers on Monday argue that their client had spent the past months under preventive custody only because he had been named by self-confessed hitman Vince Muscat. 

Testimony supplied by Muscat after turning State witness proved crucial in charging Vella, alongside Ta’ Maksar brothers Robert and Adrian Agius, with involvement in the 2017 murder plot.

Vella also stands accused alongside Adrian Vella and George Degiorgio of involvement in the murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop who was gunned down inside a Birkirkara garage complex in October 2015.

The prosecution’s perceived risk of tampering with evidence if Vella were to be granted bail, was simply “phantomatic”, the accused's lawyers argued on Monday, pointing out that the man’s criminal record showed a conviction for a minor offence for which he had landed a fine.

The lawyers also played down the perceived fear of absconding, arguing that the prosecution had produced no evidence to support its claim.

Yet, when delivering its decree on Tuesday, the court upheld the Attorney General’s argument that the risk of absconding was more real now that the accused knew what charges he was facing. 

Each case was to be decided on its own particular circumstances, said Mr Justice Grixti.

Although there was no doubt that the accusations against Vella were “of a very serious nature,” that did not mean that he was to be kept under preventive custody for the whole duration of the proceedings. 

The crucial issue when deciding upon such bail requests was to strike a balance between the various factors at play, first and foremost the sacrosanct right to liberty as well as the right of society and the accused himself to ensure a just and serene process in line with the principle of fair hearing resulting in a just outcome. 

Those factors were to be considered together with the notion of proportionality.

After taking note of these factors, even in the light of copious European case law on the subject, the court deemed that the serious nature of the charges together with the fear of tampering with evidence and that of absconding justified Vella’s continued arrest.