Man accused of 2018 Gharb murder asks for judge's recusal ahead of trial

Lawyers for Aleksandar Stojanovic, the man accused of the 2018 murder of 42-year-old Egyptian national Walid Salah Abdel Moteleb Mohamed in Gozo, have requested the recusal of the judge slated to preside over his trial.

The father of two’s lifeless body had been found in a field in Għarb, Gozo with shotgun wounds to his neck and chest.

Stojanovic, a Serbian national, was also accused of carrying a weapon without the necessary licence, driving a car without a licence or necessary insurance, and of being in possession of a vehicle which was not properly registered with Transport Malta. He denies the charges.

In an application filed this morning before the Criminal Court, defence lawyers Jose’ Herrera, Franco Debono and Francesca Zarb, asked that Judge Edwina Grima refrain from presiding over this case.

The application claims that the trial judge had been assigned “in an irregular way,” and warns that should it be necessary the defence would “initiate alternative procedures at the right moment.”

The lawyers also informed the court that Constitutional proceedings would be filed in view of the judge having already ruled that a defendant had no ordinary legal remedy to challenge the legality of his arrest, after the bill of indictment had been issued. 

Submissions relating to Stojanovic’s bail application will be based on the arguments his lawyers had already made in the habeas corpus application - that the court had to take into account all the “irregularities” that they say had followed, leaving him with nowhere to request bail or argue that his state of arrest was illegal.

“The claimant feels that directly or indirectly this Court, as presided, has already had occasion to pronounce itself on this fact.”

The lawyers also alleged “an element of prejudice” in view of the fact that the registrar for Courts and Criminal Tribunals, whose administrative responsibility includes assigning cases to judges, “also happened to be the deputy registrar of this court as presided for the last 5 years and therefore the defendant has his reservations as to how appropriate it is for this court, as presided, to scrutinise his work.”