A court will decide tomorrow whether there is enough evidence for Fabio Psaila, who stands charged with the attempted murder of two policemen during the failed heist on HSBC headquarters in Qormi, to be placed under a bill of indictment. He has also been accused of participating in the hold-up on jeweller Michael Mizzi and his son Silvio in Attard last November.
The compilation of evidence was concluded this morning, with the defence insisting that the charges against Mr Psaila were based only on superficial evidence, a claim the prosecution denied.
Mr Psaila is currently serving a six month jail term for jumping bail when he evaded the police for almost a month following the Attard hold-up.
Psaila had been dubbed “the general” during the compilation of evidence against former Police Inspector David Gatt, who was allegedly the mastermind of a criminal gang of which Psaila formed part.
Faced with a total of 30 charges, Mr Psaila has also pleaded not guilty to stealing a revolver from a police constable, holding him and another two people against their will during the attempted hold-up at the Qormi bank headquarters.
He was also charged with having a weapon without a licence, firing it in an inhabited area, stealing a number of cars and changing their licence plates.
Mr Psaila also pleaded not guilty to committing a crime within the operative period of a suspended sentence and while under a conditional discharge.
During the resumption of the court hearing this morning, defence counsel Manwel Mallia argued that a mere possibility or suspicion that an accused was guilty was not enough to put him on trial.
Evidence which was regarded as hearsay, was not admissible according to law. In this case, the evidence was hearsay, including supposed links between Psaila and a stolen van which was found burnt after the Attard hold-up and a photo which showed Psaila with Darren Debono. That photo showed the two after, and not during, a crime. Furthermore, evidence given by PC Mario Portelli showed that he had been told what he knew about Psaila by David Gatt and this could not be considered as admissible evidence.
It was true that this case had created an uproar, but one could not act on the basis of what happened outside while ignoring legal principles. With all due respect to the media, one could not have matters dictated to the court.
Dr Mallia said that he was, therefore, calling on the court to discharge his client.
The prosecution asked whether it was hearsay that the accused had disappeared for three weeks and had then been found with some 50 shotgun pellets in his body?
Was it not true that blood drops found in a car matched Darren Debono's DNA?
While some matters could be considered hearsay, others were certainly not, and the court should therefore decide that there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.