Madam Justice Edwina Grima will begin addressing the jurors this morning to provide her legal directions before sending them to deliberate their verdict.  

Businessman Yorgen Fenech, 44, is facing trial after pleading not guilty to complicity in the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and to membership of a criminal organisation allegedly formed to carry out the murder. 

Caruana Galizia, a columnist with The Malta Independent, was killed in a car bomb on 16 October 2017.

Five men have already been convicted in connection with Caruana Galizia's assassination. Vince Muscat admitted his role in the murder in 2021 and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Alfred and George Degiorgio each received 40-year prison sentences after pleading guilty in 2022, while Robert Agius and Jamie Vella were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2025 for supplying the bomb used in the attack.

The prosecution is being led by Attorney General lawyers Godwin Cini, Anthony Vella and Danika Vella, assisted by Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud and Inspector Kurt Zahra. Fenech is represented by lawyers Charles Mercieca, Giannella de Marco and Gianluca Caruana Curran, while lawyers Therese Comodini Cachia and Jason Azzopardi are appearing parte civile on behalf of the Caruana Galizia family.

Judge Edwina Grima is presiding.

Please refresh for updates

09:53 Madam Justice Edwina Grima instructs the jury on how to evaluate complex technical evidence, documentary proof, and the statements given by the accused: "You are free to depart from expert testimonies if you see fit, but you must be extremely careful when deciding against an expert opinion on matters outside common understanding."

Turning to the massive trove of digital and written evidence presented throughout the trial, the judge explains what legally constitutes a document: "When we look at mobile phones and digital devices, these are legally treated as documents exhibited into evidence. We also saw physical documents-emails, expert reports, and official records."

Madam Justice Grima issues a legal directive regarding Yorgen Fenech's police interrogations and right to silence: "The accused's statement is evidence-but only his actual answers constitute evidence, not the questions posed by police officers.

Furthermore, if the accused chose not to answer certain questions, that silence is not evidence, and you cannot hold it against him in any way."

The judge concludes this segment by clarifying the distinction between direct and indirect evidence: "Direct proof consists of what witnesses directly saw, heard, or analysed. Indirect proof is circumstantial evidence-facts from which you may draw logical inferences."

09:45 Madam Justice Edwina Grima guides the jurors on how to weigh different categories of evidence and testimonies presented over the last two months: "I think you are now experts yourselves given the lengthy time you have spent here. We saw various types of evidence during this trial - first, ordinary witnesses. These are people who testify regarding facts they directly know of - what they saw, heard, or examined. They cannot give opinions. If an ordinary witness provided an opinion, it is legally invalid and must be ignored. Only an expert can provide an opinion. In this case, we had a vast number of experts - data experts, medical experts, explosives experts, and scene-of-crime officers."

Madam Justice Grima also explains the procedural framework behind the three separate magisterial inquiries whose evidence was admitted into the trial: "We had three distinct magisterial inquiries: the homicide inquiry, the 'Daphne Leaks' inquiry, and the money laundering inquiry of Melvin Theuma. A magisterial inquiry is a process where the magistrate nominates court experts specifically for the collection and preservation of evidence."

09:39 "The first basic principle is the presumption of innocence. The accused is presumed innocent until the exact moment you deliver your verdict."

Addressing the strict rules on evidence, the judge warns jurors that any piece of evidence deemed inadmissible or brought outside proper procedure must be completely ignored: "Proof must strictly adhere to the law. Any piece of evidence that does not meet legal standards - even if presented in court - must be completely disregarded."

Madam Justice Grima firmly reiterates where the burden of proof lies, reminding the jury box that the defence carries no obligation to prove innocence.

Clarifying what constitutes legal doubt, the judge warned against finding a weak middle ground or speculating beyond the evidence: "This doubt cannot be used as a middle ground - it must be a genuine, substantial doubt. Remember, you are judicators, not detectives."

09:34 "I am dividing my address into parts: first, the general points of law-everything here is strictly regulated by law.

 Second, the specific points of law relevant to this case, including the bill of indictment and the exact offences charged."

Outlining her summing-up, the judge notes it will involve a lengthy walkthrough of the past two months of evidence:

"The third and most tedious part will be a summary of the testimonies of all the witnesses who appeared before you.

I am doing this because some testimonies were heard two months ago, so it will serve as a necessary memory refresher."

Remarking on the sheer scale of electronic evidence, recordings, and phone extraction files presented during the trial, Madam Justice Grima admits that in all her time on the bench, she never had to deal with this amount of digital data.

09:30 Madam Justice Edwina Grima strictly cautions the jurors against allowing courtroom rhetoric or lawyer commentary to influence their evaluation of the evidence: "Unfortunately, we heard a lot of comments throughout this trial - mostly and primarily from the lawyers. But your judgement cannot rely on a comment. You saw me intervene to stop those comments because they must not influence your decision.

"If someone passed a comment thinking they would influence you, you must put it completely aside. We are not here to pass judgment on the investigators, nor on the witnesses who testified. Witnesses and evidence must be evaluated solely for their credibility."

Bringing her instructions back to the ultimate scope of the trial, Madam Justice Grima defines the exact decision facing the jury box:

"In the end, it comes down to you.

Is the accused, Yorgen Fenech, guilty of the two accusations - yes, or no?"

09:25 "They told you this is a jury of power, a jury of the 'hidden arm.' I say no. This is a jury of law and facts-nothing less, nothing more. Only that must be present in your judgment."

Using an everyday analogy, the judge explains the strict limits of what evidence they are allowed to evaluate: "It is as if we went to the supermarket with a trolley and filled it with what we wanted to buy.

You are going to pay for what you put in the trolley-no more, no less.

You cannot say later that you wanted to buy a cake if it was never in the trolley, because it is not going to be on the receipt.

You are not investigators-you are judicators. Your decision has to be impartial and independent, free from any influence or prejudice. Prejudice is the ultimate enemy of judicial proceedings."

Addressing the recent issue regarding news headlines appearing on court-provided tablets, the judge instructs them to completely disregard external media and raw emotion: "You must ignore those headlines-they hold zero evidentiary value. Sentiments and emotions have no role in this courtroom. Your judgement must be based solely on reason."

09:24 Judge Grima is delivering her summing-up and legal directions:

The judge is instructing the sequestered jurors on the legal framework they must apply.

As she tells the jurors, she is the judge of law, but they are the "sovereign judges of fact."

She cannot tell them whether Fenech is guilty or innocent; that power rests entirely with them based on the evidence presented over the past two months.

During her address, the judge will systematically go through the massive volume of witness testimonies, recordings, and forensic evidence heard during the trial to ensure the jurors review it impartially.

09:18 Madam Justice Edwina Grima directly addresses the central question of how citizens drawn from everyday life carry out such a monumental legal duty: "How can a common person from the street reach a decision in a jury trial?"

The judge continues to explain the role of a jury: "What is the role of a jury?

The jury has the exact same role as the judge. You are judges in this judicial process, just like me. I am the judge of law; you are the judges of fact.

You must decide on the facts of this case, and you cannot let anyone influence your decision-not even me. You are sovereign judges of fact. The facts are in your hands, and in your hands only.

This judicial process must strictly follow the evidence that was presented to you over these last two months."

09:14 Madam Justice Edwina Grima has taken the bench in Hall 22 and begins her formal address to the jurors, signalling the start of the trial's final stage: "We have reached the end. I am addressing you now so that I may guide you on what the law says, enabling you to assess and address the facts later on."

The judge took a moment to express deep gratitude to the jury box for their service over the demanding two-month trial: "It was long and hard for everyone - especially for you, who had to make a huge sacrifice to be away from your families. We deeply appreciate it. It is not easy to take common people from the street, place them on a bench, and sequestrate them so that justice can be delivered."

Madam Justice Grima highlighted the fundamental constitutional role played by the jury in the judicial process: "It is crucial for the administration of justice. It is one of the pillars of our democracy - something we must cherish and protect."

9:13 The judge enters the courtroom, followed by the jurors.