Lawyers for Luke Milton, one of the accused in the abduction of a man in Rabat, have filed a lawsuit seeking protection in favor of Milton’s ex-girlfriend, who claims she recently contacted the alleged victim on Facebook.
Judge Monica Valla heard Milton testify in the process, in which he asked for a protective warrant in favor of his now ex-girlfriend.
Milton told the court that after he was charged with kidnapping, his girlfriend received a request for membership on Facebook from a profile in Arabic font that featured a profile image of the alleged victim of Carlos Shambri.
The girl, recognizing Shambra’s photo, told Milton that she was worried and concerned about it. Later that day, while signing his bail book, Milton mentioned the incident to a police inspector who told him to talk to his lawyer.
Milton’s lawyers then opened a separate case in which he demanded a protection order for the girl. Milton testified in the process, showcasing a USB drive that contained screenshots of a Facebook membership request and another profile from which it was created. The court said that this account was active and was not fake.
Milton’s testimony was preceded by a heated debate over whether the girl’s name could be made public, and attorneys representing the Attorney General’s Office asked for her name to be disclosed, and the defense questioned her involvement.
As a result, the court granted the petition to ban the publication of the girl’s name.
The prosecution then questioned whether a request for membership could be considered a threat, leaving its position on the request for protection. Lawyers from the Prosecutor General’s Office opposed the request.
The ex-girlfriend later testified, explaining that she was very worried about the criminal case against Milton, which left her “on the verge of depression”, adding that, to his credit, Milton helped her survive the difficult period.
When one evening she received this request for membership, it again caused her concern because she could not determine whether it was a threat, a message or something else, she said. The girl stressed that she had nothing to do with the case and did not want to live for the rest of her life “looking over her shoulder.”
Lawyers for Milton, Stefano Filletti and Matthew Xureb, argued that the civilian part – Carlos Chambery – had no right to an audience in the case and therefore could not provide materials. According to lawyers, protection orders are often issued without the presence of the other party.
Chamberlain’s lawyers, Edward Guth and Sean Zamit, argued the opposite, arguing that Chambery did take place.
During cross-examination by Shembry’s lawyers, the witness confirmed that he had never approached her in real life. At one point in her testimony, the girl complained that the lawyers were giggling, telling the court that she had suffered greatly from this “lie.”
When it was the defense’s turn to provide materials, attorney Matthew Zoureb said that threats were subjective things and noted that it was “unheard of” for AG to oppose such a request of a civil witness, which is irrelevant to the case.
The witness interpreted the membership request as a message that Chambery could find her and watch over her, Filletti added. According to him, he did not ask for accusations, but rather tried to prevent the possibility or need for them.
At the request of the chambers, the court will issue a ruling.
Lawyers Carl Muscat and Francesco Refallo represented the Attorney General’s Office in the process.
Lawyers Edward Ghat and Sean Zamit appeared for Chambers as parte civile
Lawyers for Stefano Filletti and Matthew Xureb are Milton’s defenders.