Monday’s Ħal Far Trial: Who Will Want to Serve on the Jury After the Fenech Case?

In this video, I discuss the jury trial due to begin this Monday concerning the killing of a Black man at Ħal Far, in which a Maltese soldier stands accused. This promises to be another highly contentious trial, perhaps not on the scale of Yorgen Fenech’s trial concerning the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, but potentially raising similar concerns about the treatment of jurors.

The case should be decided on the evidence presented in court. However, the treatment of jurors following the Yorgen Fenech trial raises a serious question: in what frame of mind will the jurors in this forthcoming trial undertake their duties?

Police arrested and questioned jurors in the Fenech trial over alleged discrepancies between their jury-selection declarations and earlier public comments. Police said their investigation concerned the oath jurors take before the trial. It has since been reported that at least three of those jurors will not face charges. Nevertheless, the question remains: what effect has this episode had on other citizens who may now be called to serve?

Why am I raising this? Because Monday’s trial touches on migration, a subject on which many Maltese people hold strong opinions. Some favour current migration policies; others oppose them. Lawyers may now interpret an opinion on migration as evidence that a prospective juror has prejudged the guilt or innocence of the accused.

This is why, in my view, the prosecution’s approach to the jurors in the Fenech case has opened Pandora’s box. If previous public comments are scrutinised after a verdict, prospective jurors will understandably wonder what they must disclose and whether something they said years ago might later expose them to investigation.

I am informed that a considerable number of prospective jurors in Monday’s trial have already submitted objections to serving. In my view, these objections are evidence that public confidence in jury service is already being eroded. This is not merely a question of what might happen in the future. Citizens are already seeking to avoid a responsibility they must feel confident they can discharge independently and without fear.

Those called to serve may now fear becoming targets of investigation if their verdict does not accord with the prosecution’s expectations. The objections reported to me indicate that this concern is already having consequences.

But how can jurors deliberate calmly if they are worried about what might happen to them afterwards? How fair will the proceedings be to the accused if jurors feel pressure to reach the outcome they believe the prosecution expects?

There is another question. What has happened to the matters that the judge in the Fenech trial referred to the police for investigation? To my knowledge, we have not received a clear public account of their progress. Can the police and the Attorney General explain the position, insofar as ongoing investigations permit?

Questions also remain about the disclosure of private conversations from a chat group reportedly established by jurors after the trial. Who obtained those messages, who disclosed them, and under what circumstances? Questions have been raised about the Attorney General’s office; they should be investigated and answered. Responsibility for any leak must be established through evidence.

The Attorney General’s office must itself be subject to scrutiny. Its handling of jurors, its approach to alleged misconduct and its response to questions about leaked communications are legitimate matters of public concern.

Being a juror should not become a dirty business in which ordinary citizens fear serious personal consequences for reaching an independent verdict. Jurors must be free to assess the evidence without feeling that their own security depends on satisfying the prosecution.

The prosecution is entitled to argue its case and pursue the remedies available to it. It is not entitled to persecute jurors for reaching an independent verdict. Public confidence in trial by jury is already being eroded. In my view, the numerous objections to serving as jurors that I am informed the court is receiving are evidence of that erosion.