The First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday dismissed a constitutional application filed by Brian Vella and found that his fundamental human right to a fair hearing had not been violated by the fact that his trial on charges of a double murder had been dissolved on two occasions.

The case relates to the murder of Gerald and Josephine Grima, an elderly couple, killed at their home in Sta Lucia on February 17, 2000.

Mr Vella's trial by jury was originally scheduled to be heard in 2004 but the proceedings were dissolved after the evidence of a co-accused was deemed inadmissible.

The trial resumed in January of last year but was dissolved when the Police Commissioner's evidence was deemed prejudicial by the court.

A third date for Mr Vella's trial was set for last June, but the presiding judge ordered that the trial be postponed for a short while pending developments in the constitutional application filed by Mr Vella before the First Hall of the Civil Court.

On June 9, the First Hall had dismissed Mr Vella's claim that his right to a fair hearing had been violated. The first court declared in its judgment it was satisfied that Mr Vella had other remedies at law and that the trial by jury had not been irremediably compromised.

The first court also said it would be rash if it were to examine Mr Vella's claims further since, by so doing, it would be anticipating scenarios and behaviour that might not take place. However, on June 23, the Constitutional Court overturned the first court's decision on the basis that it was untimely and ordered the case back to the First Hall, presided over by Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia, to review the evidence produced by Mr Vella's lawyers.

This included evidence related to media reports and comments by Police Commissioner John Rizzo during a press conference after Mr Vella's trial was dissolved a second time.

Mr Justice Valenzia noted in yesterday's judgment that Mr Vella feared that the extensive media coverage given to the evidence of a co-accused and to the dissolution of his first and second trial was prejudicial to his chance of a fair trial. According to Mr Vella the media coverage was followed by many persons and had been more extensive than was normal.

But the court noted that no objection had been raised by any person to the media coverage, nor was there any feedback from the viewers or readers about the case. No evidence was produced to show that there had been any specific programme or debate on the trial in question, nor had any editorial been written on this case.

The coverage of the editorial meeting called by the Police Commissioner had not been carried on the front pages of any newspaper exhibited as evidence before the court. Furthermore, the court added that the newspapers had covered all the actions taken by Mr Vella, including his court cases following the dissolution of his trials.

The court said it could not conclude, from the evidence produced, that the public was influenced by what had been written about Mr Vella.

The evidence showed what information had been given to the public on the various means of the media. Mr Justice Valenzia said he could not therefore conclude that the publicity given to Mr Vella's trials had irremediably prejudiced his position.

When referring to Mr Vella's claim that the fact that his third trial was to be presided over by the same judge who heard the case of an alleged accomplice to the crime was prejudicial to his interests, the court ruled this did not mean that the judge could not be impartial.

Mr Vella had other remedies available to him in terms of ordinary law, for he could have challenged the judge from presiding over the case. But Mr Vella had failed to so do.

The court also declined to give Mr Vella a remedy by ordering that his trial take place only before a judge without jurors. In any event, this remedy was not permissible in terms of the Criminal Code in cases where the prosecution was requesting life imprisonment. The court therefore dismissed Mr Vella's application.