‘Maksar’ Chircop murder trial will take years to begin says lawyer in bail submissions

The lawyer representing Adrian Agius in constitutional proceedings over his 14-month detention under arrest, has said he will show that Vince Muscat ‘il-Koħħu’ is lying in his testimony, insisting his client’s rights are being breached solely because of his family nickname ‘tal-Maksar’.

Agius is pleading not guilty to commissioning the murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop, a creditor of the More Supermarkets chain, shot dead inside a garage complex in Birkirkara on October 8, 2015.

Agius was arrested, together with his brother Robert and associate Jamie Vella in February 2021, when Vince Muscat pleaded guilty in court to Caruana Galizia’s murder in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Explainer | The Carmel Chircop murder and the Maksar brothers arrest

In today’s sitting in the constitutional case, Agius’s lawyer Alfred Abela told Mr. Justice Francesco Depasquale that three requests for bail had been refused: the first in May 2021, rejected due to the gravity of the charges and the early stage of proceedings at the time; his second in July rejected as premature, with the court mentioning the notion of “public disorder” as an additional ground to reject his request for release; the third  in August cited the risk of a public disturbance.

The Criminal Code’s provisions on bail did not cite the notion of public disorder as one of the grounds on which bail could be refused, argued Agius’s lawyers, adding that the only occasions where it had been used by the courts had been in the Caruana Galizia murder case, the Lassana Cisse murder case and the case against alleged drug kingpin Jordan Azzopardi.

Abela claimed that in the decisions to refuse bail, the court of magistrates had always quoted decisions from Strasbourg, “selectively”.

The Letelier vs France case, quoted in the decision, had established that preventive arrest can be justified on grounds of public disorder but Abela pointed out that the Court of Magistrates had omitted the caveat “in any event so far as domestic law recognises.”

But Abela said the Criminal Code makes no reference to public disorder. “There is no mobile phone triangulation or messages, or footage, or DNA, or an eyewitness linking him to the crime. We only have the testimony of Vince Muscat. Testimony which, I wish to point out, runs contrary to that of Notary [Malcolm] Mangion and the property broker.”

Abela also pointed to the testimony of Chircop’s wife, who had said that she had not been aware of any arguments between her husband and Agius.

This fear of public disorder was not supported by the evidence, he said. “We joked that public disorder was constantly being quoted and then after we filed this case, it disappeared. I understand that they are awaiting a final judgement in this case, but did it [the issue of public disorder] just vanish into thin air?”

Lawyer Charlene Camilleri Zarb representing the State Advocate in the proceedings, said the European Court had developed four reasons which could justify detention: the risk of absconding, the risk of tampering with evidence, the risk that the accused would commit further crimes and the risk of public disorder being caused by the accused’s release. In her first decree, Magistrate Farrugia Frendo had examined the public disorder argument, making reference to Yorgen Fenech’s case against Malta.

In the court’s second decree it held that the gravity of the crimes must always be borne in mind, gravity which could cause public disorder. “Had domestic law not wanted to take the gravity of the crime into account, it would not have mentioned it,” submitted the lawyer.

In the third and final decree refusing bail, the court had observed that at that stage the magisterial inquiries had been exhibited in evidence. The court had pointed out that although Agius was accused of the Chircop murder and not that of Daphne Caruana Galizia, it also noted that the accused’s situation had not changed. 

“It is clear from the testimony that Chircop’s murder was premeditated in detail. People were engaged, the weapon was procured and prepared, the route was planned in detail. This emerged from the testimony given by Vince Muscat.”

Agius was also a guarantor of  More Supermarkets, recalled the lawyer, quipping that “we all know what happened with More Supermarkets.” 

The supermarket’s creditors had turned on Chircop, after More Supermarkets was left with some €40 million in debts after its prime mover Ryan Schembri absconded from the island. Chircop’s widow had testified to having overheard her husband pressing Adrian Agius to repay a €600,000 debt to him in the fallout of the supermarket’s 2014 collapse.

Camilleri Zarb said the court had to take into account the nature of the crime, “not just murder but organised crime, as well as the character and antecedents of the accused. The accused is not accused of the Caruana Galizia murder, but the people he is associated with are,” argued the prosecutor.

“When the court refers to European jurisprudence and says that all circumstances must be taken into account in deciding on bail, then public disorder is a valid consideration, as it is one of these circumstances.”

Although public disorder was not explicitly listed in Maltese law as a ground for refusing bail, the list was not exhaustive, she argued, insisting that the magistrate hearing the compilation of evidence was best placed to decide on bail.

In his counter-arguments, lawyer Alfred Abela said he was asking the prosecution to bring its evidence during the trial by jury, but that the court release Agius from arrest in the meantime.

“You are breaching his rights,” the lawyer said, submitting that Agius’s trial will take years to begin and that in the meantime, the accused was missing family events, his children’s birthdays and so on.

The judge adjourned the case for judgement on 16 May.