The Court of Criminal Appeal has confirmed in full the convictions and sentences handed to Daniel Muka and Viktor Dragomanski over the 2020 Sliema double murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Piotr Maciejowski.

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected both men's appeals and upheld the jury verdict and Criminal Court judgment in their entirety.

Muka had been found guilty by a unanimous jury of wilful homicide, aggravated theft accompanied by homicide, illegal detention, firearms offences, use of stolen number plates, handling stolen property, theft of number plates, and breaching bail conditions.

He had originally been sentenced to life imprisonment with six terms of solitary confinement.

Dragomanski had been acquitted of complicity in wilful homicide, but found guilty by a 6-3 jury verdict of aggravated theft accompanied by homicide and of using false number plates. He had been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

In his appeal, Muka argued that his jury trial had been unfair. He claimed he had been prejudiced by negative media coverage before trial, denied effective legal representation by a lawyer of his own choosing, deprived of adequate time for private counsel to prepare, and prejudiced by the trial judge's summing up. He also argued that the punishment imposed on him was excessive.

The appeal court rejected all of those complaints. It held that Muka had failed to produce concrete evidence showing that pre-trial publicity had influenced jurors or rendered the verdict unsafe. The judges also noted that the presiding judge had repeatedly instructed jurors to ignore anything they may have seen in the media and decide the case only on the evidence heard in court.

On legal representation, the court found that the Criminal Court had bent over backwards for nearly two years to allow Muka to engage a lawyer of his choice, adjourning proceedings more than once and eventually appointing legal aid counsel only as a last resort. The judges said Muka repeatedly refused to cooperate with the lawyers appointed to assist him and could not then complain that his fair trial rights had been breached by a situation of his own making.

The court also dismissed his argument that lawyer Mario Mifsud had not been given enough time to prepare. It said the right to adequate preparation time belonged to the accused, not to a lawyer engaged at the last minute, and found that Muka had long been aware of the trial date and had been given ample opportunity to organise his defence.

As to the judge's address to the jury, the court said there had been no irregularity or misdirection. It held that the presiding judge had properly explained the law, the evidence, and the principles governing a criminal jury trial. The absence of defence arguments for Muka was a direct consequence of his own refusal to cooperate with legal aid counsel.

The court also refused to reduce Muka's punishment, describing the murders as exceptionally grave. It noted that Pandolfino and Maciejowski were killed in their own home and said the jury's unanimous verdict reflected the seriousness of the crimes. In those circumstances, it held that life imprisonment was fully justified.

Turning to Dragomanski, the appeal court rejected his central argument that he could not be found guilty of theft aggravated by homicide after being acquitted of complicity in wilful homicide. The judges said the two counts were legally distinct. They held that theft accompanied by homicide is an aggravated form of theft and does not depend on a separate conviction for homicide itself.

The court found that Dragomanski had knowingly participated in the robbery, acted as lookout, knew Muka had entered the property armed with a firearm, and went on to help in the theft after the killings had already taken place. It ruled that the jury had been entitled to conclude that the homicide was a foreseeable consequence of the armed robbery and that the aggravated theft conviction was therefore sound.

His complaint that the 40-year sentence was excessive was also rejected. The court said the Criminal Court had already taken into account the fact that the guilty verdict was returned by the minimum possible majority of 6-3, as well as Dragomanski's cooperation with police and relatively lesser role when compared to Muka. Even so, the judges said the crime remained of an exceptionally serious nature and a 40-year sentence was not disproportionate.

The court likewise dismissed Dragomanski's complaint about the apportionment of expert costs, finding that the forensic work carried out was essential to the investigation and prosecution of the robbery and killings in which he had been found criminally involved.

As a result, Muka remains condemned to life imprisonment with six terms of solitary confinement, while Dragomanski remains condemned to 40 years' imprisonment. The original orders on forfeiture, expert costs and ancillary penalties also remain in force.

The Appeal court was presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with Judge Edwina Grima and Judge Giovanni Grixti. Attorney General lawyers Maria Francesca Spiteri and Kevin Valletta prosecuted. Daniel Muka was represented by legal aid lawyer Josette Sultana and briefly by lawyer Mario Mifsud. Lawyers José Herrera and Alex Scerri Herrera represented Viktor Dragomanski.