Eliott Paul Busuttil appeals 42-year sentence, claims judge 'arrogantly' disregarded plea bargain

The Criminal Court had been “playing to the gallery” when it handed murderer Eliott Paul Busuttil a harsher sentence than that which the parties had agreed to in Busuttil’s plea bargain, according to an appeal filed this morning.

This was the general thrust of the appeal application filed by Busuttil’s lawyers on Monday.

Busuttil had been jailed for 42 years earlier this month, after reversing his original plea and admitting guilt for the brutal murder of 62-year-old Mario Farrugia in 2022 and the attempted murder of another man, whom he had attacked with a meat cleaver in 2020.. 

Busuttil had agreed to file a guilty plea - and avoid a costly trial by jury which could potentially result in him being imprisoned for life-  in return for a 35-year sentence, as part of a plea bargain his lawyers had reached with the Attorney General. 

But plea bargains are not binding on the court, which remains free to impose a punishment different to that negotiated by the parties, as long as it is in line with the law. In Busuttil’s case, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera had done just that, and jailed the man for 7 years more than he had bargained for. The judge remarked that Busuttil’s murder of Farrugia showed a man who was “cold blooded and ready to do anything for the sum of just €100.” 

In his appeal, Busuttil’s lawyers Edward Gatt and Shaun Zammit, argued that although the Criminal Court had declared that it had seen all the acts of the case, “nowhere did the court declare that it had also taken into account the submissions made before it by the parties.”

“This indubitably continues to confirm how much the Court of first instance had already decided on the punishment long before it heard the arguments,” said the lawyers, accusing the judge of “absolute arrogance” and of  “completely belittling” the involvement of the prosecution and defence.”

The court itself had emphasised that it had to take into account the strength of the case against the offender, argued the lawyers, who went on to state that instead of doing so by examining the evidence, the court had ignored the evidence and reached its conclusion through prejudice.

The lawyers asked that the case be sent back to the Criminal Court to be retried. In the eventuality that the Criminal Court’s judgement were to be confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, “one can freely conclude that plea bargaining in Malta is finished.”