Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546553
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 SEPTEMBER 2026 YORGEN FENECH TRIAL AFTERMATH Beyond the evidence: Breaking down the law behind the Yorgen Fenech trial A lot has been written about the Yorgen Fenech trial. This article, from the perspective of a court reporter in the case and a law student, will break down the charges into their legal ingredients and look at how they were argued in the courtroom YORGEN Fenech's trial lasted 55 days and throughout it all, every witness testimony, recording, al- legation and courtroom exchange were reported in detail. Nine ju- rors and six reserves heard the case against the man accused of com- plicity in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and criminal con- spiracy. At the end of it all, Fenech was acquitted on both counts by an 8-1 verdict. The verdict brought the trial to an end although the prosecution intends to appeal. But the outcome provides an opportunity to look at the case from a different perspec- tive—not by retelling the evidence chronologically, but by breaking down the offences and examining how prosecutors tried to prove their case, and how the defence sought to dismantle it. By the end of the trial that was followed daily by thousands of peo- ple, Malta became familiar with the names, places and evidence at the centre of the prosecution's case. Melvin Theuma and the Degiorgio brothers; the Blue Elephant and the Marsa potato shed; an alleged €150,000 payment; secret record- ings; burner phones; and competing claims over who ultimately wanted Daphne Caruana Galizia dead. But behind all this evidence sits a much narrower set of questions—ques- tions of law. What actually makes someone an accomplice to a murder they did not physically carry out? What must they have done, known and intended? Is ordering a murder legally different from assisting in one? And when does an agreement between people cross the line into criminal conspiracy? These are offences first encoun- tered and examined in the early stages of the law course. On pa- per, their ingredients can appear relatively straightforward—the law sets out what must be proved for criminal responsibility to follow. In practice, however, facts rarely fit as neatly into legal provisions as they do in a lecture hall. The circum- stances of each case, the evidence available and the inferences that can be drawn from it are what turn seemingly straightforward legal in- gredients into questions capable of occupying a courtroom for weeks. The charges against Yorgen Fenech Fenech faced two distinct charg- es. The first was complicity in the wilful homicide of Caruana Galizia. The prosecution alleged that he had rendered himself an accomplice by ordering, procuring, instructing or encouraging others to commit the murder, or by promising assistance or compensation after the fact. These crimes are found under Arti- cles 42, 43 and 211 of the Criminal Code. The second was conspiracy. Fenech was accused of associating himself with one or more persons for the purpose of committing an offence punishable by imprison- ment. In this case, the offence was Caruana Galizia's murder. This crime is found under Article 48A of the Criminal Code. Although born out of the same al- leged murder plot, the two charges raised different legal questions and required separate consideration by the jury. Theuma's testimony, for example, was not important simply because he was the self-confessed middle- man. His account of an alleged con- versation outside the Blue Elephant was relied upon to establish an in- struction to procure the murder. JULIA DOWLING jdowling@mediatoday.com.mt CONTINUES NEXT PAGE >