The trial of Yorgen Fenech has entered its decisive stage, with Judge Edwina Grima beginning her final address to the jury on Monday after two months of testimony and evidence in the case concerning the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The jury has now been told that it is not being asked to judge the investigation, the witnesses or the lawyers' arguments, but to determine one question: whether Fenech is guilty of the two accusations brought against him.

Fenech, 44, is charged with complicity in the voluntary homicide of Caruana Galizia and with forming part of a criminal association allegedly established to carry out the murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

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

Judge Grima told the jurors that their role was fundamentally different from that of the judge. She was responsible for explaining the law; they were the "sovereign judges of fact".

"You must decide on the facts of this case," she told them, insisting that they could not allow anyone, including herself, to influence their decision.

"The facts are in your hands, and in your hands only."

The judge began her summing-up by explaining that her address would be divided into three parts: the general principles of law, the specific legal issues arising from the indictment and, finally, a summary of the evidence and testimony heard during the trial.

Grima also acknowledged the extraordinary volume of digital material presented during the proceedings, saying that in all her years on the bench she had never had to deal with such a quantity of electronic evidence.

She repeatedly reminded jurors that they could only decide the case on evidence that was properly before them.

The judge referred to headlines which had appeared on the tablets provided to jurors, telling them that such material had no evidentiary value and had to be ignored.

"Sentiments and emotions have no role in this courtroom," she said. Their judgment had to be based on reason.

Jurors, she said, were not investigators but adjudicators.

She then turned to the basic principles governing a criminal trial, beginning with the presumption of innocence.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt, while the defence has no obligation to prove innocence. Any evidence that was inadmissible or had not been obtained according to the law had to be disregarded.

Grima stressed that a genuine and substantial doubt could result in an acquittal.

Jurors were also reminded that they should use their common sense, life experience and reasoning when assessing evidence, but should not speculate beyond what had actually been presented in court.

The judge explained the different standards of proof, distinguishing between what is merely possible, what is probable and what amounts to moral certainty.

The prosecution must reach the threshold of moral certainty, she said - not mathematical or absolute certainty, but a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

To illustrate the concept, she gave the jurors the example of a court marshall who rushed into the courtroom claiming that a lion was outside.

Initially, the claim might appear unbelievable. If the jurors then heard the lion roar, it could become probable. If they subsequently saw the injured marshal and heard screams outside, they could reach moral certainty that a lion was present, despite never actually seeing the animal.

The judge then turned to the evidence itself, explaining the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence comes from what a witness has personally seen, heard or analysed. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts from which jurors may draw logical conclusions.

She explained that they were entitled to accept all, some or none of a witness's testimony.

A witness could be believed completely, rejected entirely, or believed only on certain parts of their evidence.

Grima warned, however, that credibility could not be assessed according to rigid assumptions about a witness's demeanour.

A nervous witness was not necessarily lying, she said, just as confidence did not necessarily mean truthfulness.

Nor did minor inconsistencies between witnesses automatically mean that one or both were lying. Two people could witness exactly the same event and remember or describe it differently.

Consistency nevertheless remained important, particularly where a witness repeatedly changed their account.

The judge also dealt with hearsay evidence, explaining that a person repeating what somebody else had told them was not direct proof that the event had happened.

Particular attention was paid to witnesses who had themselves been involved in criminal activity.

Grima discussed the testimony of convicted hitman Vince Muscat, who had admitted his role in Caruana Galizia's murder and testified after reaching a plea bargain.

She explained that Muscat was a principal in the murder rather than an accomplice, while setting out the distinction between a principal perpetrator and an accomplice.

She also discussed Melvin Theuma, who had admitted being an accomplice and had been granted a presidential pardon in order to testify.

The judge made clear that the existence of a pardon did not automatically make Theuma's testimony truthful.

At the same time, jurors could not simply reject his testimony because he had an interest in cooperating with the authorities.

Instead, they had to test what he said against the other evidence.

Grima used the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle: Theuma might provide several pieces, but the jury had to determine whether those pieces fitted with the rest of the evidence and produced a clear picture.

The judge also reminded jurors that the law permits a conviction on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is considered completely reliable.

But where that single witness is an accomplice testifying against the accused, the law requires particular caution.

The summing-up then moved to the charges themselves.

On complicity, Grima explained that Fenech was not accused of physically carrying out Caruana Galizia's murder.

The direct executors were Vince Muscat and the Degiorgio brothers, she said, explaining how the men operated together, with one detonating the bomb while the others kept watch.

The issue for the jury was therefore whether the evidence established Fenech's alleged role as an accomplice.

Under Article 42 of the Criminal Code, the judge explained, complicity can arise through ordering or instigating a crime, providing instructions, procuring the means used to commit it, or knowingly aiding or abetting those who prepare or execute the crime.

She also stressed that the prosecution must establish the necessary intentional element of the offence.

Motive, she said, could be useful as corroborating evidence, but there was no legal requirement for the prosecution to prove a motive.

The second charge concerns criminal association.

Grima explained that this offence requires an agreement between two or more people acting with a shared criminal intent for the purpose of committing an offence.

Importantly, she told the jurors, the offence is complete once that agreement is reached.

"The very moment that agreement occurs" the crime is consummated, she explained, provided the agreement involves a concrete plan.

After the lunch break, Judge Grima began her summary of the facts of the case.

She was almost apologetic as she spoke to jurors, saying that that this would be the longest part, but that she is legally obliged to do it.

Grima told jurors that she will just be presenting a summary of the evidence, but that doesn't mean jurors should disregard anything she fails to mention.

Before launching into a review of the witness testimony, Madam Justice Edwina Grima reminds the jurors regarding their ultimate authority over the evidence: "What I am telling you is simply what I recorded throughout the trial. It does not mean that what I say is gospel, nor should you take my recollection over your own. As I told you, you are the sovereign judges of the facts in this case. It could very well be that while taking notes I missed something that you caught."

Throughout her summary during the afternoon, Judge Grima went through the testimonies of several witnesses.  These included Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud, wherein she detailed the investigation that Arnaud and his team went through, leading to the arrest of the hitmen, the discovery of Melvin Theuma's involvement, and of Fenech's eventual arrest.

The judge highlighted key evidence recovered during searches of Fenech's property and the recordings handed over by Theuma.

Data extracted from Yorgen Fenech's phone confirmed that Keith Schembri was in direct contact with Fenech right up to the moment his yacht attempted to leave the Portomaso marina, the judge said.

When questioned by police following his arrest, Schembri claimed he could not surrender his mobile phone because he had lost it and did not know its whereabouts.

The judge said that Fenech testified to  police that Keith Schembri sent Kenneth Camilleri to have Melvin Theuma killed.

However, when he targeted him, Theuma was accompanied by his young son; seeing the child present, the hit was abandoned.

Kenneth Camilleri denied this, and said he was sent to speak with Melvin Theuma in an attempt to calm him down.

Grima told jurors: "[Keith Arnaud] found numerous discrepancies when comparing the statements given by Melvin Theuma and Yorgen Fenech."

For instance, the judge said, a consistency concerned the precise timeline of the initial approach, with Theuma stating that Fenech first approached him regarding the plot approximately three weeks prior to the 2017 general election."

Madam Justice Edwina Grima reviewed Keith Arnaud's testimony regarding Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon and the sudden emergence of Keith Schembri in the investigation:  "Under cross-examination, Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud confirmed that Melvin Theuma was granted a presidential pardon covering multiple offences, primarily his direct involvement in the homicide of Daphne Caruana Galizia as well as his money-laundering activities."

Arnaud had maintained, that up until late 2019, the former OPM Chief of Staff was not on the police radar. 

Keith Schembri was never treated as a suspect in the assassination plot, with his name only surfacing in connection with the murder following the discovery of Melvin Theuma's handwritten letter during police searches.

Further to that, Judge Grima went through the testimony of various police officers, experts, and eyewitnesses.

The trial will continue on Tuesday.