A Sicilian man charged with complicity in murdering a man in 2005 is insisting his trial by jury should not be postponed as his case has already dragged on for 10 years.
Piero Di Bartolo yesterday filed an urgent application before the Criminal Court asking the court to allow his trial to start on Monday, as scheduled.
Mr Di Bartolo, a 40-year-old Sicilian, is pleading not guilty to the murder of Albert Brian Rosso, who went missing on October 10, 2005.
Mr Rosso had been reported missing by his wife but despite several searches by the police and the Armed Forces of Malta on land and at sea, his body has not been located.
Anthony Bugeja, who co-owned a fishing boat with Mr Rosso, was also charged over the murder.
Investigators believe that Mr Rosso was murdered in a Birżebbuġa garage and that his body was dumped at sea, outside the Freeport. They believe Mr Bugeja shot and killed Mr Rosso.
He has spent 10 years with the threat of life imprisonment hovering over him
On Wednesday, Mr Justice Michael Mallia upheld a request filed by the Attorney General to postpone Mr Di Bartolo’s trial so that he can be tried jointly with Mr Bugeja.
Mr Di Bartolo, represented by lawyer Roberto Montalto, objected to this decision arguing that it made no sense to postpone a trial that had been pending for years. He has spent 10 years with the threat of life imprisonment hovering over him.
In his application, he said it made no sense to allow the Attorney General to “ridicule” such serious criminal proceedings. He said the Attorney General made the request “because he believed it may strategically help the prosecution’s case” but this “did not make logistical sense” and “was not in the best administration of justice”.
Dr Montalto noted that his client’s right to face a fair trial in a reasonable period of time was already being breached, adding that the court should have considered this before any other consideration.
The lawyer stressed that his client was not to blame for the excessive delays in the case but this was due to the Attorney General’s “procrastination and/ or negligence”.
He said his client could not understand how, instead of “censoring” this behaviour, the court “rewarded” the Attorney General by upholding his request for a joint trial at such an advanced stage of the proceedings.