The prosecution argued that Lorin Scicluna cannot escape responsibility for the murder of Lassane Cisse simply by claiming that his co-accused, Francesco Fenech, was the person who fired the fatal shots.

Resuming her closing address to jurors on Friday morning, prosecutor Abigail Caruana Vella, from the Office of the Attorney General, challenged Scicluna's credibility and questioned whether his conduct before and after the shooting was consistent with that of someone who had no knowledge of what was about to happen.

She argued that the evidence pointed towards Scicluna's involvement, whether as the person who fired the shots or as an accomplice who knowingly participated in the crime.

The prosecutor also scrutinised CCTV footage showing the movements of Scicluna's vehicle and the victim, raising questions about the time the car took to travel between two nearby locations.

Jurors urged to consider complicity if they cannot identify the shooter

Caruana Vella began by addressing why Scicluna and Fenech were being tried separately.

She acknowledged that conducting a single trial involving both men would have been easier for the prosecution, but maintained that the decision to proceed separately was intended to ensure justice.

The prosecutor explained that both men had been charged as principal offenders. However, she argued that the law also allowed jurors to consider whether Scicluna was guilty as an accomplice if they were not satisfied that he personally fired the shots.

She maintained that uncertainty over which man pulled the trigger did not necessarily require an acquittal.

Instead, jurors were urged to examine whether the evidence established criminal participation, even if the precise role played by each accused remained disputed.

Caruana Vella also addressed the distinction between a principal offender and an accomplice, arguing that the law provided an alternative route to a guilty verdict where the evidence supported complicity.

CCTV footage raises questions about movements before the shooting

The prosecutor then turned to footage captured by security cameras installed at two residences near the scene of the shooting.

She explained that the recordings, which had been examined by a court-appointed expert, showed Cisse, Scicluna's vehicle and other pedestrians travelling through the area.

According to the timings presented by Caruana Vella, Cisse took five minutes and nine seconds to walk between the two camera locations.

Scicluna's vehicle, meanwhile, took approximately four minutes to travel between the same points.

The prosecutor questioned what Scicluna and Fenech had been doing during that period, particularly given the proximity of the two residences.

She pointed out that Scicluna had not claimed to have stopped the vehicle.

Caruana Vella asked jurors to consider why the journey had taken that amount of time and whether the timeline was consistent with the accused's explanation of events.

She maintained that the recordings should be assessed alongside the other evidence presented during the trial.

Prosecution addresses absence of fingerprint evidence

Caruana Vella also responded to questions surrounding the absence of fingerprint evidence from the firearm.

She explained that approximately a month had passed before investigators were in a position to examine the weapon in connection with the case.

Had the accused been apprehended in the vehicle immediately after the shooting, she argued, collecting fingerprints would have been a different matter.

However, the passage of time had to be considered when assessing why such evidence was unavailable.

The prosecutor urged jurors to base their conclusions on the evidence actually presented rather than speculate about investigative steps that might have been possible under different circumstances.

'If Scicluna knew Fenech hated immigrants, why give him a gun?'

Caruana Vella rejected the suggestion that the prosecution was overlooking Francesco Fenech's alleged involvement.

She acknowledged that Fenech was far from blameless, arguing that he would not have been charged had the prosecution believed otherwise.

Nevertheless, she accused Scicluna of attempting to use Fenech as a scapegoat.

The prosecutor questioned why Scicluna would have allowed Fenech access to a firearm if, as he claimed, he knew that Fenech harboured hostility towards immigrants.

She argued that this raised serious questions about Scicluna's awareness of what might happen.

According to the prosecution, blaming Fenech for firing the weapon did not adequately explain Scicluna's own decisions and conduct.

Changing accounts undermine Scicluna's credibility, prosecutor argues

A significant part of Friday's submissions focused on discrepancies between Scicluna's police statements and the evidence he gave during the trial.

Caruana Vella alleged that Scicluna had initially lied to investigators following his arrest.

She recalled that, during his second police interrogation, he acknowledged that the vehicle belonged to him, that he owned the firearm and that he had been driving.

However, the prosecutor argued that his testimony in court this week introduced details that had not appeared in his earlier accounts.

Among them was Scicluna's claim that Fenech had pointed the pistol at him and threatened him.

Caruana Vella noted that this allegation had not been mentioned in his police statement.

She also referred to Scicluna's account that Fenech had held onto the car door, extended his arm outside the vehicle and fired.

The prosecutor maintained that this differed from the version previously given to investigators.

She accused Scicluna of repeatedly changing his account to shift responsibility onto Fenech.

Caruana Vella asked jurors to consider whether the accused was telling the truth or attempting to conceal his own involvement.

Prosecution questions Scicluna's conduct after the shooting

The prosecutor argued that Scicluna's behaviour immediately after the shots were fired was another important factor.

She maintained that either Scicluna had fired the weapon himself or Fenech had done so with Scicluna's knowledge and approval.

According to Caruana Vella, if Fenech had fired from the vehicle while Scicluna was driving, the jury had to consider whether the accused knew what was about to happen.

She argued that someone genuinely surprised by an unexpected shooting would have reacted differently.Instead, she pointed out, Scicluna continued driving.

The prosecution presented this as evidence that his conduct was inconsistent with the claim that he had been an unwitting participant.

Caruana Vella maintained that Scicluna's actions could not be considered in isolation from the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

Jurors reminded of burden of proof

As she continued her closing submissions, Caruana Vella reminded jurors that their responsibility was to evaluate the evidence in its entirety.

She acknowledged that the prosecution bore the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor urged jurors to reach a verdict with a clear conscience, taking into account the interests of the victim, his family, society and the accused.

Her address follows closing submissions by defence lawyer Edward Gatt, who maintained that Scicluna was innocent and that Francesco Fenech was responsible for the shooting.

Gatt had argued that his client should not be held accountable for Fenech's actions and accused the prosecution of failing to undermine Scicluna's version of events.

The prosecution, however, maintains that the evidence must be considered collectively and that the jury should examine Scicluna's possible criminal responsibility regardless of which man physically discharged the firearm.

The jurors must ultimately decide whether the prosecution has proved the charges against Scicluna beyond reasonable doubt.