Yorgen Fenech’s London lawyer complains to Omtzigt of ignoring fair trial issues

A London lawyer tasked by Yorgen Fenech to petition Dutch MP Pieter Omtzigt on his rule of law report to the Council of Europe, has complained of having been wilfully ignored by the campaigning MP.

Wayne Jordash, of Doughty Street Chambers – the same office that petitioned the Maltese government for a public inquiry into the Caruana Galizia assassination – accused Omtzigt of betraying his confidence over letters requesting him to see to Fenech’s fair trial concerns. “It appears to have been wholly gratuitous. It serves no rule of law or public interest. It is likely to do nothing more than inflame the public discourse and attract further attacks on Mr Fenech’s defence team which in turn creates more of the same prejudice that you are mandated to prevent.”

Yorgen Fenech is accused of having masterminded the assassination of the journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Omtzigt yesterday issued a follow-up report on Malta’s rule of law reforms in response to a Council of Europe recommendation, which he claimed had been “unsatisfactory”. The government has countered the MP’s assertions.

Jordash was tasked by Fenech to petition Omtzigt on fair trial rights, complaining of an “inflammatory and prejudicial press campaign” that could undermine Fenech’s right to a fair trial.

Jordash wrote three times in May, September and finally in December, requesting that Omtzigt intervenes in some capacity to ensure Fenech’s right to a fair trial. Yet, Omtzigt only responded on the 24 November, citing Fenech’s legal proceedings on the allegedly prejudicial statements made by a Caruana Galizia family lawyer, and adding that his intervention in a matter that is sub judice would be inappropriate.

Jordash complained that the matter was “not in any way sub judice” when he first petitioned him in May and September, and that the Dutch MP took no action in the intervening six months to respond to Fenech’s “urgent ‘rule of law’ request.”

“The issue before the Court that is sub judice is a small part of the overall fair trial and rule of law issues that I raised with you on the 13 May and 8 September 2020. It is difficult to see why a narrow legal issue – whether statements made by a lawyer for the Caruana Galizia family are prejudicial – prevents you from protecting the integrity of the trial, including ensuring that Mr Fenech’s trial takes place in circumstances that uphold the rule of law and allow the truth to emerge,” Jordash said.

Fenech’s counsel also complained that the Maltese prosecution was taking place in the midst of “a hostile and prejudicial media campaign that appears to presume guilt”.

“As I previously noted, this unwarranted campaign has ‘already adversely impacted the preparations for an effective Defence, including harassment of his legal team and the intimidation of prospective defence witnesses’.

“It is therefore regrettable that, rather than take any steps during the last six months to safeguard against any potential violation to Mr Fenech’s fair trial rights or otherwise to act except in support of the Prosecution, you instead decide ‘to go public’ with my private correspondence,” Jordash said.

Jordash suggested that Omtzigt had added fuel to the flames in summaries of Fenech’s criminal proceedings and the conduct of his defence team, in a reference he made to Charles Mercieca’s switch from the public prosecutor to the Fenech defence team, without mentioning that the Attorney General had found no wrongdoing in the move. “As you must have known when you launched this public attack, your claim that lawyers cannot move from the Attorney General’s office to the defence (and to the judiciary and vice versa) not only ignores that it is common practice in Malta but also that it is common practice in Council of Europe States and is wholly consistent with international practice.”

Jordash also said Omtzigt had given scant appraisal of defence lawyer Gianluca Caruana Curran’s version of events in the allegation of having attempted to offer a cash gift to Times journalist Ivan Martin. “You chose to rely upon selective phrases taken out of context, a selection that serves no purpose other than fuelling the negative media bias against Mr Fenech. Accordingly, I would urge you to exercise more care in your role as Special Rapporteur.”