A judge presiding over criminal proceedings against Yorgen Fenech has turned down his latest request for bail, stating that the circumstances of this case were very unique and the fears cited by the prosecution were not "phantasmatic".
On Wednesday, Madam Justice Edwina Grima heard submissions on the request filed by Fenech’s lawyers earlier in the week, wherein they argued that the prosecution had to support its perceived fears with concrete evidence.
Three years since Fenech’s arrest it was unacceptable for the Attorney General to hold back from declaring the magisterial inquiry closed, then object to the granting of bail by saying that investigations and the murder inquiry are still ongoing, they argued.
Deputy AG Philip Galea Farrugia countered that the decision to wrap up the inquiry did not depend on the AG but on the inquiring magistrate.
Moreover, the fear of tampering concerned evidence related to the accused himself as well as third parties who may be charged in relation to the crime.
On Friday, the court declared that the case could not be compared to others because each case bore its own particular characteristics.
However, given the circumstances of this case, the prosecution’s fears were not an illusion, even in the light of the evidence produced in separate constitutional proceedings filed by Fenech claiming that his fundamental rights were breached through the repeated denial of bail.
In a judgment delivered in April by the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, Madam Justice Hayman observed that probably, Fenech did not only attempt to escape when sensing his looming arrest, but also had the financial means and contacts to do so.
Right up to the moment of arrest, Fenech had close ties with persons who could interfere with the proper administration of justice, even if the accused himself had drawn police attention to that fact.
Faced with the granting of a presidential pardon in favour of Melvin Theuma, Fenech went into “drive and panic mode”, the court observed.
Moreover, evidence produced in those constitutional proceedings appeared to indicate that Fenech had access to considerable wealth, including cryptocurrency, as well as links to influential people abroad.
When making their case for bail, Fenech’s lawyers also argued that the prosecution’s fears could be allayed through the use of electronic tagging.
However, the court pointed out that this measure was not yet envisaged in respect of persons who were currently in preventive custody.
Although the accused was presumed innocent, this case presented very unique circumstances, involving the killing of a journalist, which brought about serious repercussions that were felt on both national and international levels.
The case could not be compared to other cases because of its wide ramifications, very complex investigations and various magisterial inquiries that were still pending.
In light of such considerations, Fenech’s request for bail could not be upheld.