The trial of a former drama teacher for the death of 15-year old Lisa Marie Zahra can now go ahead, after an appeal over the bill of indictment was turned down.

Erin Tanti, the 26-year old, stands accused of wilful homicide as well as with having assisted his teenage student in committing suicide, after the two had allegedly been discovered at the bottom of Dingli Cliffs on March 19, 2014.

The man also stands accused of having defiled the underage girl at the time when he was her teacher.

During the compilation of evidence, it had emerged that the accused had spent the previous night at the Zahra home, where the two had allegedly plotted their own death.

Read: Two young people reported missing

Later, Mr Tanti and Ms Zahra had left the house, driving all the way to Dingli Cliffs where they had allegedly proceeded to put their plans into action.
However, while the 15-year-old had died, Mr Tanti had survived.

Read: Erin Tanti’s injuries compatible with fall

There were sufficient grounds for him to be placed under a bill of indictment, the Mr Tanti’s defence team objected, and the Criminal Court upheld the argument that any reference to alcohol was to be removed from the wording of the act since toxicological tests had proved that the victim had not consumed alcohol, contrary to what had been alleged by the prosecution.

However, in the same judgment delivered in July 2017, the Criminal Court had turned down the argument that the charges of wilful homicide and assisting suicide could not stand together.

Read: Teacher charged with murdering schoolgirl

The man’s defence had also requested the cancellation of the accusation relating to the possession of indecent photographs of a minor, arguing that these had been discovered on the victim’s phone rather than on Mr Tanti’s.

However, this argument was also shot down by the court, prompting the accused to file an appeal arguing that the grounds for indictment were inaccurate and “excessively dramatic.”

Yet the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon and Madam Justice Edwina Grima, confirmed the reasoning of the first court - pointing out that the appellant’s arguments were almost identical to those put forward before the first court.

The Appeals Court was not to re-judge the submissions made before lower courts, but to decide on arguments against that first decision, the Court stated.

The court observed that although the facts were described in a story-like manner, “it however, did not emerge that these were dramatised as alleged by the appellant or that the Attorney General had presented the truth in such a manner as to create an impression upon the jury”.

As to the grounds of wilful homicide and assisting suicide, these were separate scenarios on which the jurors were to decide, the court declared, adding that it was not within its powers to examine the facts. This was a matter for the judges of fact, namely the jurors, the court concluded.

Rejecting the appeal, the court declared that “throughout the trial the judges of fact were to be given the opportune direction” by the presiding judge when delivering his final address in such a manner as to enable the jurors to gauge the value of the evidence put forward.

Lawyers Michael and Lucio Sciriha are defence counsel.