Court rejects defence claim that indictment in Miriam Pace case is 'dramatised'

The court has rejected an argument by the defence of Ludwig Dimech and Nicholas Spiteri, accused of the involuntary homicide of Miriam Pace, that their indictment “cast an unfair shadow over the accused.” 

The Criminal Court has rejected this argument, along with almost all of the other defence claims. Out of 24 exceptions raised by the defence, 10 by Dimech and 14 by Spiteri, only one technical request brought by Spiteri was upheld.

Miriam Pace died on 2 March 2020 when her home in Ħamrun collapsed due to excavation works at a nearby site. The accused face three charges: involuntary manslaughter, involuntary damage to third-party property, and failure to comply with construction method declarations under building regulations.

Ludwig Dimech requested the nullity of the entire indictment, arguing that it was “dramatised” to cast an unfair light on him and disrupt the jury’s impartiality. He also claimed that the Attorney General failed to specify the role of experts in the case, who had already been found liable in other proceedings.

The Court rejected these arguments, clarifying that the indictment’s purpose is to provide the accused with “a clear picture of the evidence in the hands of the prosecution on which the case is built.” Jurors are explicitly warned that the narrative “has no probative value” and that their verdict must be based solely on evidence presented at trial.

Regarding Dimech’s objection to including his prior convictions, the court stated that this is “a factual matter for the jury” to consider after a verdict, with the judge guiding the jurors on points of law.

Nicholas Spiteri also claimed the indictment was invalid because testimony was recorded digitally rather than by electromagnetic means. The court dismissed this, noting that advances in technology allow for digital recording and that the court may authorize it as necessary.

The defence further objected to showing jurors photos of the victim’s body. The court ruled that such evidence is necessary to establish the involuntary manslaughter of an individual.

Ultimately, the court dismissed all exceptions except the single technical request by Spiteri which concerned a few pages mistakenly included in the case records.

For the first two charges, the Attorney General seeks up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of €11,646.87 for Dimech, as a repeat offender, and up to four years’ imprisonment or the same fine for Spiteri.