Albert Brian Rosso's widow and daughter to sue State, Police over accused murderers' acquittal

The widow and daughter of Albert Brian Rosso, who disappeared in 2005, have filed judicial proceedings to hold the authorities to account for their recent failure to convict two men who had confessed to murdering Rosso. 

The two women filed a judicial protest yesterday, three weeks after Anthony Bugeja and Piero Di Bartolo were acquitted by a jury of having murdered Rosso.

Rosso, 48, from Marsaxlokk, is believed to have been shot dead in his hometown on October 10, 2005, outside a house belonging to Anthony Bugeja, one of the men accused of his murder. Prosecutors said that Rosso’s killing was connected to a dispute over a fishing vessel owned by Rosso and Bugeja and on which Di Bartolo worked. 

READ ALSO: [WATCH] Danny Rosso: They killed my brother, admitted and walked free​

While being questioned by police, the two defendants had both separately confessed to having shot Rosso before disposing of his body at sea. On a boat, accompanied by a police inspector and a lawyer, they had even shown them the area where the body, weighted down with heavy objects, had been dumped into waters 100 metres deep.

Although the law as it stood at the time did not afford suspects the right to be assisted during interrogation, the incriminating statements they released as a result had to be expunged from the evidence, in view of subsequent legislative changes. 

The jury which acquitted the men never laid eyes on these statements, nor could the statements be mentioned during the trial.

It came as little surprise, therefore, 18 years after Rosso vanished, with his body never having been recovered, that jurors had found the defendants not guilty of the murder and complicity in it.

The judicial protest filed against the State Advocate and the Commissioner of Police points to the delay in bringing the men to trial, together with other shortcomings in the investigation and handling of court proceedings as having led to the men’s acquittal. These factors, together with the change in the law regarding unassisted interrogations, which was introduced long after the crime took place, had resulted in a miscarriage of justice, they say.

These actions, argued lawyers Stefano Filletti, Eve Borg Costanzi, and Nicole Galea, meant that the State had breached the right to life enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. This right, the lawyers argue, not only prohibited the State from taking life and protecting the living, but also imposes a duty on the State to investigate “promptly and with reasonable speed” when a murder takes place.