There were mixed reactions to the Attorney General's physical absence from the prosecutorial team in the Yorgen Fenech trial by jury.

Without in any way diminishing or criticising the commendable prosecutorial qualities of the team in the Yorgen Fenech trial by jury, I wish to address some ongoing concerns regarding the proper role of the Attorney General. Additionally, I would like to highlight issues within our criminal justice system that pertain to high-profile criminal cases. It is imperative that the Attorney General take ownership of these matters and exercise a strong leadership role.

The attorney general and the deputy attorney general can have an important role in the administration of criminal justice, especially on those rare occasions when he or she appears as counsel. We have witnessed this in previous high-profile criminal trials involving former police commissioner Lawrence Pullicino, as well as Meinrad Calleja. Additionally, the prosecutions of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and Judge Patrick Vella serve as further examples.

It is a significant oversight and a serious deficiency that, as of now, we still do not have a Deputy or Assistant Attorney General in place.

The courts have benefited from their advocacy in their occasional court appearances. Their intervention in important criminal cases is proper and welcomed. I would be concerned, however, if the Attorney General appeared in more mundane cases, and especially in any criminal case.

The Attorney General's personal intervention in headline-hitting criminal trials is justified and expected on the basis that they involve matters of important public interest. His or her personal appearance is necessary to emphasise the importance of the matter to the country and to subject all aspects of the case to intense public scrutiny.

An Attorney General should consider what a personal intervention can usefully bring to the presentation and determination of the case. What perspective or dimension does the Attorney General's own appearance add?

I believe it is imperative for the Attorney General to lead in major prosecutions.

The rising public concerns are evident in the growing calls for the Attorney General to uphold the highest professional standards in prosecutorial conduct.

Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the Attorney General to uphold a system that is true to the finest and most esteemed traditions of that office.

                                 It was a jury nullification, not a miscarriage of justice

In normal legal parlance, miscarriage of justice refers to a failure in the legal system that results in an unjust outcome, typically manifesting in two primary forms: the wrongful conviction of an innocent person and the unfair acquittal of a guilty individual. In short, it refers to a situation where a legal decision, such as a verdict, is fundamentally flawed or unfair.

These incidents can provoke significant controversy and public discourse, often highlighting the complexities and imperfections within the criminal justice system. High-profile cases, such as the recent Yorgen Fenech trial by jury, illustrate how public perception can sway opinions about justice and injustice, leading to emotional responses from victims, families, and communities.

Miscarriages of justice not only occur during trials but can happen at various stages of the criminal process, including wrongful arrests or failures to apprehend guilty parties. Such outcomes can foster scepticism towards legal institutions and ignite political debates that may lead to policy changes. While both forms are troubling, many view wrongful convictions as the more severe issue, as they directly impact the lives of innocent individuals.

Understanding miscarriages of justice is crucial for advocating reform and ensuring a fairer justice system for all.

Many were dismayed at the outcome of the Yorgen Fenech trial, with some outright qualifying it as a miscarriage of justice. Given the overwhelming weight of the probatory evidence supporting the prosecution's case, it is challenging to dismiss such a claim, and it is likely that there is some validity to it.

Yet it is more probable that it was something worse, rather than a miscarriage of justice.

It was a jury nullification.

In criminal law, juries are charged with determining whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence and the law as instructed by the judge. However, jury nullification is a unique and often misunderstood power that allows jurors to acquit a defendant even if they believe the evidence shows guilt and the defendant has technically broken the law.

In practice, jury nullification occurs quietly. Jurors deliberate on the facts of a case and, even if they determine that the evidence supports a conviction, they may opt to acquit because they believe that convicting would be unjust. This decision often stems from political, moral, ethical, or personal beliefs.

                                        The Marian Kocner & Yorgen Fenech trials

 Accused in court of ordering the assassination of prominent Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak in 2018, Marian Kocner was first acquitted in 2020, with the Supreme Court reversing his acquittal after finding "several mistakes" in the original trial, thus ordering a retrial, and a second time in 2023, with the Supreme Court again reversing the acquittal on grounds that included "failure to examine all the necessary evidence" and ordering a new panel of judges to hear the case.

The murder of Jan Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kusnirova, sparked the largest protests in Slovakia since the fall of Communism, leading to the resignation of the government of Robert Fico, although the nationalist prime minister returned to power in 2023.

Though Kocner was twice acquitted, three other people were sentenced over the crime, including two hitmen and an accomplice.

In Malta, Daphne Caruana Galizia's brutal assassination, too, sparked large protests that led to the downfall of Joseph Muscat's administration, although the Labour Party was returned to power with a landslide victory in the following general election.

In Yorgen Fenech's case, the prosecution, too, appealed to try to overturn the jury's acquittal verdict and obtain an order for a retrial by the Criminal Court of Appeal.

One can legitimately draw some parallels between the two pending trials and hope that both will represent a new opportunity to resolve two crimes that undermined press freedom in Slovakia, Malta and in Europe.