Judge Edwina Grima on Friday rejected a motion filed by Yorgen Fenech's defence to have his trial by jury dissolved over concerns on media headlines that jurors may have seen on their court-provided tablets.

The motion centred around a discovery that the tablets that were provided to jurors for them to access the voluminous documents had allowed them to potentially see local media headlines, including about trial proceedings.

The issue was first highlighted during proceedings on Wednesday, and since then court IT expert Martin Bajada was tasked with compiling a list of headlines that the jurors may have been exposed to.

Bajada's report showed that were around 400 headlines relating to trial proceedings that jurors may have seen via their tablets, although there was no way of saying whether they had actually seen them or not.  He said that jurors were not allowed to access any local media articles regardless and hadn't done so.

Bajada also reported that one particular headline centred around Fenech's request for a presidential pardon - a request that jurors were forbidden from hearing about in testimony - was published after it was mentioned in open court during the playback of Fenech's interrogation.

The defence however was not satisfied, and defence lawyer Charles Mercieca described the situation as deeply worrying.  He argued that the foundational purpose for the sequestration of the jurors is to protect them from external influence.  This, he said, was undermined by their exposure to media headlines.

He said that the headlines to which jurors were exposed did not always align with testimony presented in court and frequently strayed into opinion, pointing specifically to coverage regarding Fenech's request for a presidential pardon. 

Mercieca highlighted several headlines, including one suggesting that the defence had additional evidence from Keith Schembri's device. Another headline stated: "It's an evil cover-up, Yorgen Fenech says, as jurors hear about pardon request."

Mercieca also noted that jurors had access to other unrelated content through the tablets, including the headline concerning that jurors have access to BBQ nights, a gym, and pools.

He says this is precisely why jurors have been kept away from their families, arguing that otherwise there would be little purpose in sequestration. Jurors were effectively "infiltrated with third-party opinions" through the news headlines accessible on their tablet, Mercieca argued.

Mercieca therefore filed a formal request for the dissolution of the jury, and hence the trial. This "should never have happened", he said.

The prosecution strongly objected to the request, arguing that the use of electronic tablets in a jury trial is not explicitly regulated by law and therefore should not serve as grounds for dissolving the trial.

The prosecution also noted that the headlines identified by Bajada were merely potential headlines that could have appeared on the tablets, rather than proof of what the jurors actually saw, and they further argued that the headlines accurately reflected events that had already taken place inside the courtroom.

On the headline referring to Fenech's request for a presidential pardon, prosecutor Anthony Vella said this was published after jurors had already been shown the audio-visual recording of Fenech's own police statement, which constitutes admissible evidence.

The prosecution also cited the precedent of Republic of Malta vs Salvatore Gauci, emphasizing that courts must exercise extreme caution before dissolving a jury. They argued that the court must carefully evaluate the nature and gravity of the incident and be thoroughly convinced that it resulted in irremediable prejudice to the accused before taking such a drastic step. 

Finally, Vella argued that it would be "an insult to the jurors" for the entire trial to be dissolved after everything they have gone through simply because they "could have" seen headlines concerning matters discussed in court.

On his part, Mercieca responded by acknowledging that requesting the dissolution of the trial at this advanced stage is uncomfortable for everyone involved, but also insisted that the court should not let the length of the proceedings influence its decision.

He reiterated his core position that jurors simply should not have been given any access to external media.

A very tense three hour wait followed before Judge Edwina Grima emerged from her chambers to rule on the matter at around 3pm.

After going through the arguments of the defence and the prosecution, Judge Grima said that the headlines that jurors may have seen were insignificant compared to the volumes of evidence that are involved in this case.

She noted that the list of more than 400 headlines generated by the tablet analysis represented a cumulative record of all potential headlines that could have been fetched by the system, rather than proof of content actually opened or read by the jurors.

The judge emphasized that there is no concrete evidence demonstrating that the jurors actively viewed those specific headlines. Furthermore, she observed that the vast majority of the media headlines in question simply reported factual details that had already been formally presented as evidence in the courtroom throughout the trial.

Addressing the defence's specific concern regarding headlines about Yorgen Fenech's request for a presidential pardon, Judge Grima pointed out that the single headline referencing the pardon was published only after the jury had already heard about the pardon request during the playing of Fenech's police interrogation in court.

He ruled that what few headlines may have shown up were insignificant and incapable of affecting the jurors' decision-making.

He said that any prejudice would have to be sufficiently serious to undermine the administration of justice and affect the right to a fair trial and added that she does not consider the material capable of influencing the jurors and will give them clear directions on the evidence they are entitled to rely upon when reaching their decision.

The defence's motion was therefore denied, and the trial continued.