A man set to face a trial by jury over the attempted murder of the son of his father's former partner is to face proceedings according to the bill of indictment as presented by the prosecution after a court of appeal turned down his request to remove parts of the text from said document.

Daniel Felice stands accused of seriously wounding Sean Holmes when he shot him outside the family residence in Għarbon December 13, 2007.

The extramarital relationship between the accused's father and the victim's mother had reportedly degenerated to the point of physical abuse. The victim's mother had allegedly suffered threats and various injuries, including fractures to her legs, at the hands of Silvio Felice, the accused's father.

On December 13, 2007, Mr Holmes travelled to Gozo to confront his mother's lover when a violent argument ensued outside the Felice home in Għarb between Mr Holmes and the accused's father.

As Mr Holmes was walking away, Mr Felice allegedly fired several shots hitting the man three times in the back. The following morning the police received a report that a wounded Englishman had been found next to a telephone booth in Ċirkewwa.

Police investigations led to the arrest and arraignment of Mr Felice who is currently awaiting a trial by jury.

The accused however raised preliminary objections regarding certain references under the first heading of the bill of indictment which could potentially prejudice his rights in the criminal trial.

A superior court of appeal, presided by Mr Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice David Scicluna and Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, confirmed an earlier judgment rejecting these objections raised by the accused.

In his appeal, Mr Felice had claimed that reference to his father's extramarital affair, to the alleged physical abuse and to the narrative of the incident in Għarb were prejudicial in his regard. Objection was also raised with respect to certain parts of the testimony of the victim and to reported advice given by doctors in England regarding the victim's injuries.

The defence had argued that such information could influence the jurors and potentially sway their verdict against him. No explanation by the presiding judge could totally erase any impression left in the jurors minds, the defence stated.

However, the court rejected this argument and declared that it was up to the criminal court to hear all the evidence collected by the prosecution. The jurors, as the judges of facts, were bound to analyse all the "proof taken as a whole."

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.