When it’s not only words

Lawyer and former Nationalist Minister Jason Azzopardi’s strong statements about Yorgen Fenech being the “sole” mastermind behind Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder were seen by the Court as a blatant violation of court orders and highly damaging to a fair trial.
In a recent interview with LovinMalta, Azzopardi made remarks that prompted legal action by Fenech’s defence team. Azzopardi claimed that Fenech sought a presidential pardon because he was guilty and insisted there was overwhelming evidence pointing to Fenech as the only mastermind behind the murder.
Now this could favour Fenech’s defence team. His lawyers in fact jumped at the opportunity and argued that Azzopardi’s statements were not only untrue, but prejudiced Fenech’s right to a fair trial by influencing public opinion, which could affect the jurors. They also noted that Azzopardi’s comments contradicted other evidence and court decisions, particularly regarding references to the presidential pardon, which had been legally prohibited.
The defence lawyers asked the court to take action against Azzopardi’s “contemptuous behaviour” and ensure it does not go unpunished, asserting that his comments were in contempt of the court and harmful to the proper administration of justice.
To add to this concoction, Robert Aquilina, Honorary President of the NGO Repubblika, has publicly supported Azzopardi. Karol Aquilina, a Nationalist MP and Robert’s brother, echoed Azzopardi’s views, saying that when Yorgen Fenech requested a pardon, he was admitting to the criminal acts for which he sought immunity. Robert Aquilina also claimed that any other interpretation is a lie. However, Fenech’s lawyers argue that what Azzopardi, and now Aquilina, have said is false and contradicts the facts, prejudicing the entire case by influencing public opinion.
Yesterday, a court ruled that LovinMalta must remove a portion of the interview with Jason Azzopardi. The court, led by Judge Edwina Grima, determined that the section discussing a specific individual, Yorgen Fenech, was inappropriate. Additionally, the judge ordered Azzopardi to delete the entire interview from his Facebook page. Judge Grima stated in her ruling that Azzopardi’s comments about Fenech’s guilt or innocence could potentially hinder the legal process. She expressed concern that these comments might sway the opinions of potential jurors who have yet to be chosen for the trial.
Whilst refraining from falling into the rabbit hole by commenting on a trial, it is to be said that comments made by public figures might disrupt ongoing proceedings and could technically lead to the case being dismissed. It would be naïve to think that such comments are being uttered unintentionally.
Certain statements made by public figures can be a flagrant violation of court orders and highly prejudicial to a fair trial for several reasons. Firstly, these orders are meant to ensure that the judicial process is not compromised by public opinion or media influence. When a public figure makes a statement that violates these orders, they may be found in contempt of court for disobeying the order, which is a legal offense. This is, after all, what Fenech’s lawyers are arguing. Let’s not forget either that such behaviour shows a blatant disregard for the court’s authority and the rule of law, potentially encouraging others to do the same.
A fair trial requires that the right decisions are made, based solely on evidence presented in court, not on external opinions or media coverage. Public figures often have a significant influence on public opinion. If they express strong views on a case, it can create public pressure that indirectly influences jurors, witnesses, or even the judge. This undermines the legal process and the integrity of the justice system.
Public figures must exercise caution when commenting on ongoing legal cases to avoid violating court orders and compromising the fairness of the trial. As a lawyer, Jason Azzopardi knows this very well. Undoubtedly, The Jounal’s readers are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.