The defence of Bojan Cmelik, the Serbian bartender accused of murdering Hugo Chetcuti, has rested after a brief address to jurors by lawyer Simon Micallef Stafrace, in which he argued that Chetcuti’s death was, at least in part, the responsibility of the medical professionals who treated him for stab wounds inflicted by his client.

Eschewing the usual theatrics and long-winded oratory usually brought to bear on jurors, Micallef Stafrace limited himself to 30 minutes of argument.

“The situation of what my client has been accused of is quite straightforward, wilful homicide, resisting police officers and carrying a knife. It is the opinion of the defence that there was enough evidence on resistance and carrying a knife…We are focusing on the homicide situation.”

The lawyer said that most of the facts in the case were clear, but that the problem lay with the interpretation of the facts. “When you interpret the facts, it cannot just be straightforward and simple. It is not always so, they have to be interpreted within the context of the accusation. This is important.”

Micallef Stafrace said he had no issue with the DNA evidence, or the eyewitnesses themselves. “They have no interest in deviating from the horrible truth which they saw with their own eyes.” 

“Where the issue of credibility might arise, and I’m being kind, is what happened in hospital.”

“There is another fact which unfortunately there is no doubt, that unfortunately Mr. Chetcuti was stabbed. We have seen the footage, you have been on site, you have heard the witnesses. Undeniable fact. This is the crux of the matter…we have other facts which lead to an element of uncertainty, where one is not so sure. This is the element of doubt.” Where there is a reasonable doubt, it must be examined and interpreted in favour of the accused, argued the lawyer.

“There is another fact which we must deal with. That Mr Chetcuti died of septicaemia. It is the defence’s position that there is an element of responsibility on the hospital in the larger sense of the word and we believe that a number of mistakes were made in hospital and therefore the question that arises : where does the responsibility of the hospital supplant that of the accused.” 

“Were the actions of the people in hospital the cause of Mr. Chetcuti’s death? Very simple.”

“It has been made amply clear what the first mistake was, and that was the non-discovery of the third perforation…the second one was the delay in operating again.”

“Why am I saying this? Because even though the accusation is of homicide, the law does give you options.” There are other, lesser crimes beyond simple homicide. There is grievous bodily harm from which death ensues... There is another even lesser one where death occurred as a result of a supervening accidental cause and not as a natural result of the offence.”

It’s not a simple instance of using the word “complications” …what we are staying is that these man-made complications resulted in the death of Hugo Chetcuti. Why is this important?

He said a chain of events had to be proven in this case, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

“As has been said elsewhere, does the original injury remain the operative and significant cause of death”

“Was the death an inevitable result of the injury?” asked the lawyer, ending his speech. The trial will continue in the afternoon with the prosecution’s reply.

Lawyers Joe Giglio and Mario Spiteri appeared on behalf of the Chetcuti family. Lawyers Kevin Valletta and Maria Francesca Spiteri from the Office of the Attorney General prosecuted.