Criminal proceedings surrounding the death of two elderly British men inside a Buġibba apartment two years ago have taken an unexpected twist when a defence lawyer raised a constitutional issue over seemingly delaying tactics by the Attorney General.

Dragana Mijalkovic, a 44-year old Serbian national, has been held under preventive arrest for the past 15 months ever since criminal investigations kicked off into the suspicious deaths of 67-year old David Grant and 78-year old Neville Ayers in 2016.

The accused.

Both men had apparently died under similar circumstances within the space of eight months. Their lifeless bodies found inside the same flat and bearing signs of neglect had sparked off suspicions in respect of the woman who had shared the residence with each of them.

As the compilation of evidence against the woman continued this morning, defence counsel Peter Fenech, upon noticing that among the witnesses summoned by the prosecution, some had already testified at an earlier stage, promptly voiced his objections.

“Once again today, as has happened at least in the past four sittings, no new evidence has been brought forward,” Dr Fenech remarked, objecting to the endless number of referrals whereby the Attorney General’s Office was insisting on calling to the witness stand “an enormous number of witnesses who had already testified”.

In a formally-recorded minute in the records of the case, Dr Fenech declared that such behaviour on the part of the Attorney General’s office manifested a lack of professionalism which was resulting in a breach of the accused’s fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

The situation was all the more serious since, in this case, Ms Mijalkovic was still being held under preventive arrest on account of “constant objections by the AG”, Dr Fenech stressed, requesting the court to refer the matter to a constitutional court so that “interim remedies and measures” might be provided for.

Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, presiding over the compilation of evidence, ordered a communication of the minute to the AG, granting the latter 24 hours within which to file a reply.

Following a brief succession of four witnesses who simply confirmed pre-exhibited evidence, Inspector James Grech requested the court to extend the brief of medical expert Mario Scerri so that the latter might confirm whether the physical appearance of the two victims before their death, as captured in footage exhibited by the prosecution, was consonant with their medical files obtained from the British authorities.

Yet this request once again prompted a strong reaction by Dr Fenech who objected to the medical expert since the latter had allegedly “expressed an opinion” and reached a “wrong conclusion” when testifying earlier in the proceedings.

Dr Scerri had declared under oath that when carrying out his brief at the scene of the alleged crimes, he had been met by Ms Mijalkovic, ‘as hyperactive as always,’ whose version he had recorded and who, on the second occasion, had appeared to have been on the defensive, “trying to explain many things at once”.

The court ruled out this objection, reaffirming its “full faith” in Dr Scerri “as an independent and unbiased court expert.” However, for the purpose of allaying the concerns of the defence lawyer, Magistrate Frendo Dimech declared that she would appoint two other medical experts to assist Dr Scerri in his brief.

The case continues.