The 29 paintings they were speaking of were the ones stolen from Judge Giovanni Bonello’s home in Old Bakery street, Valletta in April. The court also ruled there was sufficient evidence for a bill of indictment to be drawn up against Farrugia.

Proceedings against Farrugia started yesterday after he had been charged with aggravated theft earlier this month. Farrugia, together with others, allegedly stole 30 works of art from the judge’s residence on 5 April. He has denied all the charges pressed against him, including damaging private property and relapsing in view of previous

convictions.

Prosecuting inspector Geoffrey Azzopardi told the court Ian Farrugia refused to answer any questions upon interrogation. He explained fingerprints matching Farrugia’s had been lifted from a plastic bag found covering the stolen paintings and when he confronted the accused with this fact, Farrugia did not react.

Mr Azzopardi’s colleague, Inspector Michael Mallia, explained that the paintings were discovered on 26 April following a search in a garage in Birkirkara. The works of art were found behind a false wall made of bricks in the garage. He clarified that only 29 paintings were behind the wall.

The bag Insp. Azzopardi spoke of was found covering these paintings. Insp. Mallia went on to make the connection between the bag and the theft. A relatively new ladder had been left at Judge Bonello’s house by the thieves, he said. They had used it to lower themselves into the basement after they had broken into the house through the cellar grating, clarified the inspector.

He explained that the ladder found at the scene of the crime was definitely bought in a plastic bag just like the one at the Birkirkara garage, the one with the fingerprints that match Ian Farrugia’s.

Fingerprint expert Natalie Zahra confirmed that the prints lifted from the plastic bag did indeed match those of the accused. “One matches the middle finger of the right hand and the other is a perfect match for the ring finger of Ian Farrugia’s left hand”, she said.

Insp. Mallia explained that the remaining painting, the one esteemed to be the most valuable, since it has been attributed to Caravaggio, was found in a house close to the garage where the other 29 were discovered.

Both the house and the garage belonged to Joseph Portelli, said the inspector. Portelli is also being accused of the theft and is being charged in a separate case, he continued. “Portelli decided to tell the truth,” said Insp. Mallia.

As he uttered these words, Insp. Mallia was interrupted by an objection made by defence attorney Dr Edward Gatt. He told the court that the inspector could not quote Joseph Portelli’s statement to police. This, he explained, would be hearsay evidence as Portelli would probably not be able to testify in the proceedings against Farrugia. Judgement has not been passed on his case and therefore he would not be a valid

witness in the eyes of the court, continued the attorney.

The court upheld the defence’s objection and ordered the inspector to continue testifying and not refer to anything Portelli has told police. Resuming his testimony, Insp. Mallia said the police had reason to believe Ian Farrugia, Joseph Portelli, his brother Dennis and Charles Falzon were together the day before Portelli’s arrest.

Ian Farrugia had taken Portelli to his Bugibba flat where they discussed how to get rid of the painting hidden under the bed. This was the one that held most concern for them, continued the inspector. They knew that police had been searching Portelli’s house and decided to wait until the squad left. As the police did not leave, Portelli went home and was immediately arrested, Insp. Mallia said. He told the court that the police believe the theft was committed by Ian Farrugia and two others.

Towards the end of the sitting the defence made a request for the accused to be granted bail. After his arraignment, earlier this month, Farrugia had been remanded in custody and Dr Gatt said the court must try to forget who the accused is and the political nature of the cases he had been involved in.

On the other hand, the prosecution claimed that Farrugia should once again be remanded in custody because “a look of his might be enough to intimidate non-police witnesses”. The inspectors also said that evidence may still be tampered with.

Farrugia’s request for bail was denied on the grounds laid down by the prosecution. In light of this, the defence asked the prosecution to call up these non-police witnesses, that “are worrying them so much”, at the next sitting.

The court, presided over by Magistrate Anthony Vella, ruled that sufficient evidence was presented for a bill of indictment to be drawn up against Ian Farrugia.