A Sicilian man accused of complicity in a 2005 murder has insisted in court today that his trial, that was due to start on Monday, should not be postponed.
In an urgent application filed before the Criminal Court, Piero di Bartolo is seeking to revoke a court ruling that on Wednesday postponed the trial so that he stands trial jointly with Anthony Bugeja, the man who the police believe shot and killed Albert Brian Rosso in October 2005.
Mr di Bartolo, a 40-year-old Sicilian, is charged with complicity in the murder of Mr Rosso, who went missing in October 2005 and whose body was never found. Investigators believe that Mr Rosso was murdered in a Birżebbuġa garage and that his body was dumped at sea, outside the Freeport.
Mr di Bartolo was due to face a trial by jury on Monday but it was postponed after Mr Justice Michael Mallia upheld the Attorney General's request to postpone it so that the two men could face trial together.
Mr di Bartolo’s lawyer, Roberto Montalto, objected to this decision, stating that it made no sense to postpone a trial that has been pending for years.
In his application, Dr Montalto said that it made no sense to allow the Attorney General to “ridicule" such serious criminal proceedings. His client, he said, has spent 10 years with the threat of life imprisonment hanging over his head.
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 also pointed out that the AG spent six years fighting a constitutional case to ensure that the two men are tried separately.
He noted that his client's right to face a fair trial in a reasonable amount 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 AG by upholding his request for a joint trial at such an advanced stage of the proceedings.