Man jailed for murdering warden loses appeal

John Attard, known as ‘Il-Muha’, who was jailed for life in 2010 for the 2001 murder of local warden Fortunata Spiteri in Gozo has lost an appeal against his conviction, but will be considered for parole after spending 30 years behind bars.

Attard had appealed on the grounds of misdirection of the jury by the judge because, amongst other things, of the guidelines he had given and the tone of voice he had used in his summing up.

In a comprehensive judgment on the matter, Judges Joseph Zammit Mackeon, Abigail Lofaro and Edwina Grima, presiding the Court of Criminal Appeal cited UK criminal law experts Mitchell & Richardson Archbold as saying:

“Every defendant, we repeat, has the right to have his defence, whatever it may be, faithfully and accurately placed before the jury. But that is not to say that he is entitled to have it rehearsed blandly and uncritically in the summing up. No defendant has the right to demand that the judge shall conceal from the jury such difficulties and deficiencies as are apparent in his case.”

The judge had not strayed from the guidelines normally used for jury trials, ruled the court, adding that the extract of the judge’s address upon which the claim was based could not be taken out of the context of the larger picture of what he was saying.

The judges of the court of criminal appeal observed that the first court had not excluded the jury’s freedom to decide as they saw fit and had emphasised several times that they should decide on the facts as they saw them and not as anyone was portraying them.

The applicable principles, including the onus of proof being on the prosecution, the presumption of innocence and the level of proof required for a conviction were all explained to the jurors, said the court, observing that they had been told to decide in a detached manner without prejudice towards the accused or the victim.

After analysing the judge’s final address the court held that there was no doubt that he had provided the right balance in his words.

There were no grounds for the appellant to claim a miscarriage of justice had taken place due to the judge’s address.

The second ground of appeal, that the jury had made an incorrect assessment of the evidence was also dismissed.

The accused had given the court a “rather nebulous and inconsistent” version of events which did not tally with that given by other eyewitnesses, said the court, ruling that this could never have left a doubt in the mind of the jurors that the appellant had instigated the commission of the murder.

On the third ground of appeal, the punishment inflicted, it was pointed out that the jurors had reached a verdict which was not unanimous and which had taken 23 hours to be reached - which indicated uncertainty and that the appellant had acted out of fear of Benny Attard.

But the court of appeal was not swayed by this argument either, ruling that the fear “had not been decided as being a determining factor in the commission of the crime by the jurors or this court”.

The judges said they could not ignore the fact that this was a murder of a person carrying out her public duties, committed in order to prevent her from performing them.

The criminal nature of the act was twofold, said the court, prompted by the appellant’s “decision to challenge this authority by eradicating with the worst imaginable means whoever stood in his way from doing whatever he wanted, with impunity.”

Persons giving a service to the public deserved protection, said the court, “protection which unfortunately in this case cannot be given to Fortunata Spiteri who died not only during the carrying out of her duties but because she was carrying out her duties, however which the court can give to other public officers whose mission is to ensure that order reigns in our society.”

Although the jury’s verdict had not been a unanimous one, it could be taken as ‘close to unanimous’ and the punishment handed down by the presiding judge was just in the particular circumstances of this case, ruled the court.

The Court of Criminal Appeal noted that the first court had imposed imprisonment for life which, contrary to popular belief, in Malta is a “whole life” sentence, but in order to avoid any fear of a breach of his human rights and in the light of and legal developments and Constitutional Court judgments, the court ordered that, the convict be seen by a parole board after serving a minimum of 30 years of his sentence - in 22 years’ time.