Convicted murderer Ronald Azzopardi, known as Is-Sufu, has filed an appeal against a constitutional court ruling that rejected his bid to overturn a life sentence for the 2005 Żejtun car bombing that killed Angela Bondin.

The appeal, filed by lawyers José Herrera and David Camilleri, challenges a judgment delivered by Judge Audrey Demicoli on 29 September 2026, which dismissed Azzopardi's claims that his conviction had been based on false testimony.

Azzopardi's lawyers are arguing that recordings of a key prosecution witness, Joseph Grima, allegedly contradicting the evidence he gave during the criminal proceedings should have raised sufficient doubts about the safety of the conviction.

They maintain that the court failed to give adequate weight to the recordings and could have ordered a retrial rather than dismissing the constitutional case.

Azzopardi was sentenced to life imprisonment in March 2013 after being convicted over a bomb explosion in Żejtun on 18 June 2005, which killed Angela Bondin and seriously injured Therese Grima.

He was also convicted of attempted murder and other offences connected to the explosion. His conviction was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal in May 2019.

Lawyers challenge treatment of witness recordings

The latest appeal centres on recordings made after Azzopardi's trial, in which Joseph Grima allegedly denied having identified him as the person who placed the bag containing the bomb.

Grima had been a key witness in the criminal proceedings, identifying Azzopardi by his build rather than his facial features.

According to the appeal, Azzopardi's relatives approached Grima on separate occasions and recorded conversations in which he allegedly insisted that he had never identified Azzopardi as the person responsible.

In one of the conversations, Grima allegedly went as far as saying that if he had made such an identification, he would be prepared to serve the prison sentence himself.

The defence maintains that two recordings, made on separate occasions, support its contention that Grima's original testimony was unreliable.

However, in its September judgment, the court found that the recordings did not establish that Grima had given false evidence during the criminal proceedings.

The court also criticised the circumstances in which one of the recordings was obtained, noting that Azzopardi's relatives had introduced themselves as being associated with CPS and the university rather than identifying their connection to the convicted man.

In the new appeal, the lawyers defend this approach, arguing that revealing their identities and intentions could have discouraged Grima from speaking openly.

They also dispute the significance attached to Grima's absence from the constitutional proceedings, arguing that the State had the opportunity to summon him to challenge the recordings.

The lawyers contend that the recordings, together with four affidavits presented during the case, provided sufficient evidence to warrant further judicial scrutiny.

Defence argues conviction could be unsafe

A central argument in the appeal is that a court does not necessarily need to establish a convicted person's innocence before considering whether new evidence justifies reopening a criminal case.

Citing European human rights jurisprudence and judgments concerning miscarriages of justice, the lawyers argue that fresh evidence can render a conviction unsafe even when it does not conclusively prove innocence.

They maintain that the constitutional court should have considered whether the alleged contradictions in Grima's account undermined confidence in the original verdict

The defence also argues that the court had remedies available beyond immediately releasing Azzopardi, including ordering a fresh trial.

The appeal refers to the case of Emanuel Camilleri, whose conviction was annulled following revelations concerning false testimony.

It also cites judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the reopening of criminal proceedings where new evidence or serious judicial errors emerge.

Azzopardi's lawyers argue that constitutional courts have sufficiently broad powers to intervene where fundamental rights may have been breached.

Court had pointed to other evidence

In dismissing Azzopardi's constitutional case last month, Judge Demicoli found that his conviction had not rested solely on Grima's testimony.

The court noted that the prosecution had also presented evidence concerning a vehicle linked to Azzopardi, CCTV footage and mobile phone information placing him in the area around the time of the crime.

It also observed that the Court of Criminal Appeal had already examined Grima's identification evidence and found no miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that there was no clear evidence establishing that Grima's testimony was false and that constitutional proceedings could not serve as an additional criminal appeal.

In their latest application, however, Azzopardi's lawyers insist that Grima was the only witness who claimed to have identified him as the person placing the bomb.

They argue that the constitutional court should have examined the implications of his alleged subsequent statements rather than treating the issue as an attempt to reopen matters already decided by the criminal courts.

Appeal highlights absence of criminal case review mechanism

The appeal also draws attention to mechanisms available in other European countries for reviewing criminal convictions after new evidence emerges.

The lawyers cite the United Kingdom's Criminal Cases Review Commission, as well as procedures in Germany, France and Norway that allow convictions to be reconsidered in certain circumstances.

They argue that Malta lacks an equivalent mechanism for reviewing potentially wrongful convictions.

The application asks the Constitutional Court to revoke the 29 September judgment, uphold Azzopardi's original requests and grant an appropriate remedy.

Those requests include quashing his conviction, ordering his release and awarding compensation for alleged breaches of his fundamental rights.

The appeal does not itself overturn Azzopardi's conviction, which remains in force pending any further court decision.