Brian Vella yesterday filed a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that his right to a fair hearing would be violated if criminal proceedings against him continued in the Criminal Court.

Mr Vella is accused of the double murder of an elderly couple at their home in Santa Lucija on February 17 six years ago.

In his application, filed against the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner, Mr Vella claimed that he had been arraigned three years ago, and his case was moved to the Criminal Court in February 2004 for him to undergo a trial by jury.

But the Criminal Court had dissolved the trial and put the case off without a date on the basis that there could be serious problems with the proper administration of justice.

This decree was issued after a number of witnesses were heard and after the Attorney General had said that a certain Dominic Bonnici could not testify as he was accused of the same crimes as Mr Vella.

At that time, the criminal proceedings against Mr Bonnici had not been completed.

Mr Vella said the Police Commissioner had testified in the trial by jury about what he had been told by Mr Bonnici, and this had cast implications on Mr Vella's alleged involvement and guilt.

All the evidence heard in February 2004 had been reported extensively in the newspapers, and the implications made were reported as facts.

In his application, Mr Vella said the criminal proceedings against Mr Bonnici were concluded when the latter admitted his guilt before the Criminal Court.

A second trial by jury was appointed for last January before the Criminal Court.

On the first day, when evidence was produced, the Police Commissioner had testified and had mentioned facts that were inadmissible at law and that could prejudice Mr Vella's position.

The Criminal Court once again dissolved the trial, and Mr Vella said this incident and the Police Commissioner's testimony were again extensively reported.

The implication made by the Police Commissioner was reported as a fact and this could lead the public (from whom new jurors were to be selected) to draw certain conclusions that could be prejudicial to him.

According to Mr Vella, the Police Commissioner had drawn more attention to the case by calling a press conference in which he spoke about the trial and his evidence.

The Criminal Court had again set a date for Mr Vella's trial, which was to commence on June 5, only four months after the public had been told facts that could seriously prejudice his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Mr Vella had asked the Criminal Court not to hold the trial and to take all such measures that were necessary for the correct administration of justice. This request was dismissed by the Criminal Court.

Mr Vella said his right to a fair trial would be seriously prejudiced and in the circumstances he had serious doubts as to whether there would be the necessary impartiality in the criminal proceedings against him.

He added that the trial had received much publicity and that the same judge, Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono, had presided over Mr Bonnici's trial and had also presided over the first two dissolved trials.

In conclusion, Mr Vella asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to provide him with a remedy and to safeguard his rights.

Lawyers Angelo Farrugia and Kris Busietta signed the application.