2005 murder of Albert Rosso: Judge orders removal of accused's statements from evidence

The fate of the future trial of two men indicted over the 2005 murder of Albert Brian Rosso hangs in the balance, after the Criminal Court today upheld a defence request to declare the statements the accused had made during their police interrogation to be inadmissible as evidence.

Anthony Bugeja and Piero Di Bartolo are awaiting trial after being indicted in 2008 for the murder of Marsaxlokk man Albert Brian Rosso, who was shot dead on October 10 2005 outside Bugeja’s home in Marsaxlokk.

Prosecutors say that the murder was connected to a dispute over a fishing vessel owned by Rosso and Bugeja and on which Di Bartolo worked.

The compilation of evidence had heard how Bugeja had phoned Rosso to visit his home in order to discuss business problems involving the fishing schooner Desiree, which was crewed by Di Bartolo. An argument had broken out, ending up with Bugeja fetching a firearm and firing several shots at Rosso, killing him “in the presence and in agreement with Di Bartolo,” according to the Bill of Indictment.

Rosso’s body had been placed in a sack and dumped at sea near the Freeport in Marsaxlokk, the prosecution had alleged. It was never recovered.

The men were indicted for Rosso’s murder, as well as for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime, disposing of a body and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Defence lawyers for the two accused subsequently attacked the admissibility of the statements and declarations made by their clients.

The judge observed that at the time when Bugeja and di Bartolo had released their statements, they had no right to consult with a lawyer before or during the interrogation, despite the law providing for it. “These rights were not enforced before 10 February 2010.”

After conducting a highly detailed examination of case law on the issue of the admissibility unassisted statements, the judge noted that the Maltese courts had recently started to declare statements taken before February 10 2010 to be inadmissible in view of the suspect’s vulnerability, which could cause irremediable prejudice to their defence.

The court pointed out that in the case at hand, Bugeja had released three statements, the first two without being cautioned and Di Bartolo had released four, the first one without being cautioned. All the statements were taken in 2005 and therefore without legal assistance.

Having read the statements, the court said that there was a possibility of prejudice against the accused, “especially when whoever is called upon to judge sees the answers they gave in their statements, and when they had no right to any defence.”

After taking this into consideration, Madame Justice Scerri Herrera said that she was of the understanding that the statements of the accused, together with any indication or reference made to them, should be declared inadmissible.

The judge also ordered the expunging of the statements from the acts of the case.Lawyers Franco Debono, Arthur Azzopardi and Andy Ellul represented Anthony Bugeja in the proceedings. Piero Di Bartolo was represented by lawyer Roberto Montalto.