Trial by jury | Judge warns against ‘sentimentality and emotion’ in reaching verdict

Matthew Mizzi, on trial for complicity in a 2009 hold-up of a Birkirkara mobile phone outlet in which a shopkeeper was shot, faces a lengthy jail term if the jury returns with a guilty verdict.

Accused Matthew Mizzi (centre) has a word with lawyer Lucio Sciriha. Also seen in the photo is lawyer Christopher Chircop (left). Photo: Chris Mangion
Accused Matthew Mizzi (centre) has a word with lawyer Lucio Sciriha. Also seen in the photo is lawyer Christopher Chircop (left). Photo: Chris Mangion

Accused Matthew Mizzi frowned and tapped his foot nervously as judge Antonio Mizzi delivered his summing up of the evidence seen by jurors in his trial.

Mizzi, on trial for complicity in a 2009 hold-up of a Birkirkara mobile phone outlet in which a shopkeeper was shot, faces a lengthy jail term if the jury returns with a guilty verdict.

The nine men and three women of the jury have retired to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of the accused for each of the four heads of indictment, as the fourteenth day of the trial drew to a close.

The first and most serious of the heads of indictment faced by Mizzi is complicity in theft which was aggravated by violence, attempted murder and the illegal arrest of a person. The other accusations for which Mizzi is indicted are possession of a firearm without the necessary licence, driving a vehicle without a licence and making a false report to police.

The convicted robber Jonathan Coleiro, who is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence for committing the 2009 armed robbery at a mobile phone shop in Birkirkara, during which the shop owner had been shot in the arm and chest, had told the jury that the Mizzi was fully aware of the plan.

Coleiro, 31, from Cospicua, had explained to the jury that Mizzi had driven him there because he himself did not know how to drive. 

Mizzi is pleading not guilty to the charges, insisting that he had simply given Coleiro a lift to Birkirkara and had no idea that he had intended to rob the shop. 

But in previous sittings, lawyers for the prosecution had pointed to the statements given by the accused during interrogation, saying they had not been credible. The balaclava used in the hold-up was found a considerable distance away from where the accused had indicated, lawyer Elaine Mercieca had said, arguing that it was a red herring placed there to throw investigators off the scent.

Additionally, Mizzi had admitted to filing a false report, but at the same time was pleading not guilty to complicity, the prosecution had argued.

MIzzi’s defence lawyer Michael Sciriha, however, is arguing that the accused, who is of below-average intelligence, was “simply a pawn in the hands of a sinister, shrewd man” and was threatened by Coleiro.

Sciriha had highlighted contradictions between Coleiro’s version of events and that given by police officers, attaching Coleiro’s character and his criminal record. “This is the prosecution's star witness contradicting the other witnesses... The prosecution is telling you to disbelieve a person with an immaculate criminal record and to believe a person with ten previous convictions, many of them for theft!" the lawyer had explained.

“In these situations you must be blocks of ice, not on a summer day, but one that remains consistent,” the judge said, warning that sentimentality and emotion should have no place in their decision, rather they “must be extremely analytic in reaching conclusions.”