Lawyer Jason Azzopardi has had his contempt of court conviction overturned on appeal after publishing a Facebook post about Yorgen Fenech.

Yorgen Fenech claimed that on 21 June 2025, Azzopardi posted on Facebook in breach of two court decrees: one issued on 5 June 2023 and another on 19 September 2024.

Fenech argued that the post clearly referred to him and implied his guilt in a murder case. He further noted that this was not the first time Azzopardi had acted in this way.

In August 2024, Azzopardi had already described Fenech as guilty, defying the authority of the court. That behaviour had led to the 19 September 2024 decree, after which Azzopardi removed the offending post.

Fenech also referenced another Facebook post uploaded by Azzopardi on 5 June 2025, following the jury verdict in the trial of Adrian Agius, Robert Agius, Jamie Vella, and George Degorgio over the murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia and lawyer Carmelo Chircop. 

Azzopardi replied that his post merely stated the truth about that verdict, noting that Fenech had no right to interfere in matters where he was not involved.

The court initially ruled in chambers that Azzopardi's conduct amounted to contempt of court. He was subsequently fined €300.

Azzopardi appealed the decision on two grounds. Azzopardi first argued that his conduct did not constitute in facie curiae contempt (misconduct in open court).

He claimed that the First Court had misapplied the law by treating the act as in facie curiae contempt and deciding it directly, rather than ordering the Registrar to initiate proceedings.

Under Maltese law, there are two types of contempt: in facie curiae which immediate misconduct during court proceedings and ordinary contempt, which occurs outside a court sitting, such as breaching a court order.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the First Court had not applied the in-facie curiae procedure. Instead, it acted under the law governing breaches of criminal court publication bans.

Article 517 provides that the Criminal Court issuing a prohibited publication order has jurisdiction to decide whether it has been breached and may determine the matter itself without referral to the registrar. Thus, the first ground of appeal was dismissed.

Azzopardi's second ground of appeal argued that he should have been formally arraigned via summons or arrest, rather than being convicted based solely on a private application and filings.

The Court of Appeal accepted this argument, holding that when a publication ban order is allegedly breached, the First Court must bring the accused before it through a summons or arrest, followed by a hearing.

In this case, no such procedure was followed, and the matter was decided solely on written submissions. This procedural defect rendered the conviction null and the previous €300 ruling was revoked.

The court therefore upheld the second ground of appeal and revoked the conviction, annulling the First Court's decision.

The registrar had also argued that the appeal was time-barred, as it should have been filed within two days of the ruling. The Court of Appeal dismissed this claim, noting that because the decree was issued from chambers rather than in open court, the appeal period had not yet begun and started only upon notification of the parties. 

The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Robert Mangion and Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca.

The court in its decree allowed the publication of the judgement, but no comments about it.