The exposure of jurors to testimony described as prejudicial was not deemed serious enough by a judge to justify that a trial on attempted murder is stopped.

The request to declare a mistrial was raised by lawyers Edward Gatt and Kris Busietta appearing for Ronnie Azzopardi, 34, who is pleading not guilty to trying to kill the brother of the man who had murdered his own brother, Jason, also known as Is-Sufu, in 2001.

His brother’s killer, Melchior Spiteri, is serving a 30-year jail term for the crime.

Mr Azzopardi allegedly fired five shots at Jonathan Spiteri in what the prosecution characterise as a revenge attack on January 5, 2003 in Marsascala. The accused is alleged to have fired the shots from a motorcycle as he drove alongside Mr Spiteri’s car, injuring him in the shoulder.

Mary Rose Cassar testified that after a bomb was placed under her car people had told her the accused had expressed the intention to do so.

At this point, Mr Justice Michael Mallia told the woman that what other people had told her was classified as hearsay evidence and was not admissible. He then turned to the jurors and explained to them the law governing such testimony.

The defence team asked for a five-minute break to speak to their client and then insisted the testimony had completely prejudiced the case.

They argued the damage caused to their case was irreparable and so a mistrial should be declared and the jurors discharged. Lawyer Nadine Sant, from the Attorney General’s Office, said there was no legal basis for the request. The judge ruled that although there were elements of hearsay evidence in Ms Cassar’s testimony, the court had stopped her immediately and explained that certain declarations could not be made. Furthermore, the prejudice was not grave enough for such an extreme decision as declaring a mistrial.

The estranged wife of Jason Azzopardi, the deceased, testified that Jonathan Spiteri had approached the accused in her presence and said he knew he was not the person who had fired the shots.

She said that, at the time of the alleged crime, the accused was with her and they went for a drive, stopping briefly at Testaferrata Street, in Gżira, where her husband had four flats, to collect rent.

Questioned by the prosecution, the witness could not say why she and the accused had made a number of phone calls to each other when they were meant to have been together in the same car.

The case continues.