Caruana Galizia assassin's Constitutional claims over use of his phone data dismissed by top court

The Constitutional Court has thrown out an appeal filed by one of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassins and confirmed that none of his fundamental rights had been breached by the use of incriminating mobile phone data which had been retained under an EU directive that had later been declared null.

Alfred Degiorgio’s claim had already been dismissed by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, presided by Madame Justice Anna Felice, in May 2022, but the convicted murderer had subsequently filed the appeal which was decided today.

The Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr. Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr. Justice Anthony Ellul, conclusively dismissed the claim in the judgement handed down on Monday.

The court observed that in October 2022, long after he had filed the human rights case he had been convicted of the journalist’s murder and of participation in a criminal organisation, upon his own admission, and sentenced to imprisonment for 40 years. 

In view of these developments, the three judges had invited Degiorgio to declare that he no longer had an interest in the present proceedings, which had been intended to prevent the use of the phone evidence in his trial, as he had pleaded guilty. He had insisted on their continuation because he had filed an appeal.

That appeal was also rejected just over a year later, in November 2023.

“When the Court of Criminal Appeal had denied the plaintiff’s appeal, he then made a different argument to show his continued interest in this case. His lawyers made reference to an ongoing Constitutional case before the First Hall of the Civil Court and said that its outcome could also affect this case.

“The court read the initial application for that case, in which the plaintiff and his brother…were requesting a declaration that their fundamental rights to a fair hearing would be breached by the fact that their lawyer had given up his brief and ceased to assist them and they were to be represented by a legal aid lawyer.”

But that ongoing Constitutional case had nothing to do with the admission of guilt, observed the court, pointing out that it had, in fact, been filed before the trial had been due to take place and eventually had been superseded by the defendants’ guilty pleas.

The judges observed that the fact remains that the plaintiff’s trial did not take place because he and his brother had chosen to admit to the charges on indictment. Although they had filed an appeal in which they had not contested their admission of guilt, that appeal had been rejected and the Criminal Court’s sentence was confirmed. 

In view of these circumstances and developments, the judges said they were of the opinion that Degiorgio no longer had a juridical interest in seeing this appeal through. Degiorgio was also made to suffer all of the costs of the case, “once he continued to insist on the appeal when he didn’t have the requisite interest.”