Deliberates of the magistrates judgement contested by the Defence;

Page 29 - [AA1], Question: how can the Judge limit the credibility of witnesses to the said limited charges and refrain from
the merits or cause of the collision or its exact location when there is a distinct and obvious pattern of contradictions
dictating the actual incident from which the charges have been specifically derived from? When there are both suspicion
asserted by the Investigating officers to the courts of a deliberate engineering to pervert the course of justice which
seriously undermines the credibility of the complainants the Attards and Shepherds? There would be no incident and thus
charges against the accused if it were not for the specific leading actions of the complainants that initiated the incident.

Or alternatively it could be like an alibi considered that as the magistrate has exhibited her faith solely in favour of the
Attards then if they are saying that the location they declared on oath was where the fight took place where they smashed
deliberately and planted Ms. Attards glasses then police evidence demonstrates that the accused was not in this location but
somewhere else and unfortunately no one can be in two places at the same time.

Page 30 - [AA2], Especially when the magistrate herself in this next following paragraph states “the evidence in this case
and the evaluation of the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses are crucial, since the complainants are alleging a case of
uncontrolled road rage practised on two elderly men, whilst the accused cites that he was acting purely in self defence”.

Page 30 - [AA2 a], Note - The court has pronounced the complainants as elderly men.
In actuality the accused defended himself against Mr. Attard who from records (Judgement page 34) was 5ft 11 inches and
in testimony weighing 100 kilos approx who at the time was 55 years. The accused defended himself against Mr. Ruben
Briffa who at the time was 30 years and from recollection is in stature larger than the complainant mentioned above. The
accused categorically denies defending or attacking Mr. Shepherd who was first noticed lying a distance away from where
all witnesses have stated the actual fighting transpired, however Mr. Shepherd who from records was 5ft 8 inches and looks
to weigh 100 kilos approx who at the time was 56 years. The accused himself from records was 6ft approx and from
medical records both from Dr. Brian Flores Martin and from CCF weighed just 69 kilos who at the time was 34 years.

In addition the courts cannot dismiss the facts that a man of 55 years of age approx might not have the strength or force to
be dangerous as in the very same CCF prison by the Courts own findings are men residing of this same age whom have
brutally killed.

Page 30 - [AA3], Which further questions the desire in [AA1] of the magistrates desire to refrain where there is her very
own following contradiction in [AA2] of the crucial evaluation and credibility etc. and here in [AA3] the emphasis made
and the support to Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta and its clauses of the guiding principles for those who have to judge the
facts, the demeanour, conduct, and character of the witnesses, to the probability, consistency, and other features of his
statement, to the corroboration which may be forthcoming from other testimony, and to all the circumstances of the case.

Page 30 - [AA4], The magistrate proposes that Mr. Attards testimony before the court appointed expert Dr Zammit Louise
is perhaps the most incisive. However the magistrate has excluded vital affirmation that before the same court expert Dr
Zammit Louise and Superintendent Simon Galea who has professed his findings before the Courts on the 16 May 2003
(page 9), architect Valerio Shembri who has produced a technical report of such, the whole police investigative team and
before the presiding magistrate in Court on numerous occasions on the 16 & 19 May 2003 of the critical fact in accordance
with Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta specifically as stated with reference to Article‟s 630,633, 636 and 637. That both Mr.
& Ms. Attard both who have testified that Ms. Attard was as always wearing her glasses that night of the 10 May 2003.
This advocates that Ms. Attard lied to PS 1131 Justine Camilleri and factually proves this lie and perversion of justice by
way of Valerio Shembri technical report before the Courts and Superintendent Simon Galea suspicions “That is I had this
suspicion that these glasses, a piece of these glasses could have been planted there during the night or early in the
morning” and court appointed expert Dr Zammit Louise findings presented before the Courts and the same magistrates
probing of this fact - Ms. Attard on Oath confirmed “I know that I had my glasses on my head and when I went to hospital I
remembered I had my glasses where are they and I did not find them”? The Court {then where did you find your glasses}?
“Then we found them when we went to do, we found them there near Bahar ic-Caghaq” The Court {you went to do what?
Who was present}? “There was the Court Expert. I always wear my glasses, sometimes I forget them even during the night
and leave them on my head”.

The Court {I am going to read to you the evidence which you had tendered before the Court Expert. See if you can confirm
it on Oath}. “I state that I am recognising the brown glasses found on the ground at the side of the road as being mine. I
confirm that these glasses were on my head when the incident occurred yesterday and this is showing the site. From these
glasses I can establish the place where the incident occurred etc.”.

This all categorically and factually proves that both Attards after the actual incident and hospital, someone with
some calculated aggression deliberately smashed to smithereens these glasses and planted this material evidence to
convince the authorities and the investigative team of a version proven in actuality to be untrue. It is a crime to
mislead an investigation and to pervert the course of justice by on oath also committing perjury which undermines
all credibility and honesty of these complainants and proves to what ambitious lengths they are capable of deceiving
the Judicial Authorities.

Page 30 - [AA4 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to Mr. Attard addressing the accused that he
should not have effected that manoeuvre in view of the fact that two of his passengers were disabled. Just before this
however important information has been omitted by the magistrate which is direct conflict with the Chapter 9 of the Laws
of Malta and its clauses of the guiding principles for those who have to judge the facts especially of the precise moments
before the incident that has lead to the charges and incarceration of the accused by the complainants. Here the magistrate
has failed to according to the Articles of Law to include all the circumstances of the case, the demeanour, conduct, and
character of the witnesses, corroboration, consistency and other features of his statement etc. the Defence submitted in their
submissions (page 6) that:

1. Mr. Attard in his testimony to the Court expert in the same magisterial enquiry as referenced above [AA4 a] that as he
saw the accused coming out of his car in front of him at that point the tells his passengers and wife “Hallieh f‟idi”
(“Leave him in my hands”) he then as made reference to above went to speak to the accused etc. It is to be noted that
the words “Hallieh f‟idi” are synonymous with aggression in Maltese everyday language and by using that language
Mr. Attard shows that he was very angry at that particular point. However in his latest testimony before the Courts
Mr. Attard denies ever telling anyone in his car “Hallieh f‟idi” he now claims he said “I will talk with him”. Yet still
contrarily his wife Ms. Attard - “I did not pay attention why my husband exited the car”? And his passenger Ms.
Shepherd - stated also contrarily that Mr. Attard went out saying “let me see what happened”?

2. Another undeniable fact that is crucial to the Articles of Law that has been omitted is that Mr. Attard has admittedly
not checked the damage sustained to his vehicle after the accident in this same moment as referenced above [AA4 a]
but went directly to face the accused. The Defence has highlighted that this is not the normal behaviour of a calm
person etc. Yet in breach of the Articles and contrarily his friend Mr. Shepherd on oath stated that Mr. Attard did
indeed check his car for damage?

The accused in virtue of the Articles; his demeanour, conduct, to the probability, to the corroboration which may be
forthcoming from other testimony clearly demonstrate by him first checking his vehicle and then after walking in the
direction behind exhibit a calm demeanour and conduct. The fact that he has checked his vehicle first produces the
probability of calmness and what would be considered normal behaviour of a calm character etc and this has been
corroborated on oath by Victoria - “Tristan checked the damage” and Ramona - “Naturally everyone checks the
damage, Tristan checked my car”.

3. The fact that Mr. Attard has alleged that he told the accused at this moment as referenced above [AA4 a] why he was
 driving in this manner etc shows that he did blame the accused for incident and that his frame of mind at that time was
far from calm as he tried to make the Court believe. However it must be noted that Mr. Attard in his latest testimony
revealed that with 42 years driving experience he does not know whose fault it was that caused the accident? Ms.
Attard also stated - “I don‟t know whose fault it was”?

The Defence has in its submissions (page 4) and in accordance with the Articles highlighted the probability and its
factors that it is really strange that a person with 42 years driving experience does not know who is to blame for the
accident when it is widely known that the moment a driver has an accident he would know for sure whose fault it was.
Note: The Defendants Tristan, Ramona and Victoria is absolute and not marred by any uncertainty whatsoever, they
all saw the Sierra (which came from behind in the opposite lane of oncoming traffic) at the moment it impacted into the
Defendants Punto.

Page 30 - [AA5], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the actual fight; in essence the accused
responded by punching him on his left eye and whilst Mr. Attard tried to avoid further blows by waving his arms about, the
accused then threw him on his bonnet and kept on hitting him then Mr. Attard tried to escape from the accused by moving
around the car to no avail.

Page 31 - [AA5 a], in essence (from page 255) that he was punched 3 times on the left side of his face and left eye before
he collapsed on the bonnet of his car, that the accused was moving like a boxer challenging him to fight. That he saw Mr.
Shepherd unconscious on the ground.

Page 31 - [AA5 b], in essence (from page 295) that after he was punched he ended up sprawled on the bonnet of his car
whilst the accused kept on hitting him even as he tried to run away from him.

1. Following it is humbly submitted of the magistrates inaccuracy to the depiction produced in her judgement AA5, AA5
a, and AA5 b & c, of the actual testimony of Mr. Attard:

[AA5] - (Mr. Attards version 1: Police Statement) it is omitted that Mr. Attard stated Mr. Shepherd came out to
help by trying to hold back this person. My wife also came out.
Mr. R Briffa and Saviour stopped behind my car exactly and went to stop the Defendant. I saw the Defendant punching Mr.
R Briffa knocking of his spectacles. I went to pick up these spectacles and gave it back to Mr. R Briffa, we then helped Mr.
Shepherd into the Sierra and drove to the Hospital.

[AA5 a] - (Mr. Attards version 2: Court testimony 03) The Defendant punched me on the left hand side near my
eye, not once I remember three for sure. I know Mr. Shepherd came out he was trying to hold me first then he went to hold
the Defendant to separate us. {And what happened to Mr. Shepherd}? “Nothing, that is all I remember, only that he tried to
hold him”. I then sort of lost consciousness for a few moments and fell on the bonnet of my Sierra for a few seconds only
because then I regained consciousness, while I was on the bonnet I heard a girl (Ramona) shouting „Stop it, Stop it‟ from
the direction of the Defendants Punto, I saw the blood, I took out my handkerchief to stop my eyes from the blood. I then
tried to escape, I tried to pass from behind the vehicle, stopping the blood I saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground on the other
side I was again twice hit there.

It is factually inaccurate for the magistrate to assert or imply that Mr. Attard was hit 3 times on his face and 3 times on his
left eye. It is also inaccurate to imply that Mr. Attard collapsed as he himself states he fell. Mr. Attard did not say that the
accused was moving like a boxer but that he made movements like those made in boxing. Which if anyone throws a punch
it looks like…boxing hence the name, even Mr. Attard made movements like those made in boxing by punching the
accused.

[AA5 b] - (Mr. Attards version 3: Court testimony 03) he immediately started to hit me. {On Oath did you attack
or grab the Defendant by the neck}? “No I did not grab him by the neck”. Mr. Shepherd did not come out of the car
because I told them stay here, I will take of this myself, as Mr. Shepherd suffers from fits and must not get worried because
if he worries he gets a fit. The Court {so you also advanced on the Defendant}? “When he had almost arrived near me I
advanced on him”. The first word I said “I have two disabled at the rear who are frightened” and that‟s all I remember. I
informed the Defendant because when he came out and was approaching he took out his fist and kept on hitting me, he
would not let me go. I tried to hurl a blow here and there but I could not see, I do not think I hit him maybe just once. I then
saw Mr. Shepherd lying on the ground near the car. {But how far was Mr. Shepherd from you}? I saw Mr. Shepherd when
I tried to escape from him, I passed from behind the car and I saw him on the ground. {The Defendant is hitting you, then
all you know Mr. Shepherd is on the ground, you do not know who hit Mr. Shepherd because the Defendant was punching
you} “Right”. The Court {you told us you slightly lost consciousness} “there were a few seconds for sure where I do not
know what happened”. The Court {then you tried to escape from him from behind the car and when you arrived from
behind the car it was there that you saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground}? “I saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground then”. {And the
Defendant was running after you behind the car}? “Yes”. I do not know if the Defendant was with me all the time, I know
that on the other side of the vehicle I was hit again. Now if at that time as I went round the car, he went for anybody else.
The Court {you don‟t know because you were unconscious for those few seconds}. Personally I did not see anyone hit Mr.
Shepherd I saw him going down and that‟s all, not going down I saw him on the ground.

[AA5 c] - (Mr. Attards version 4: Court testimony 09) Mr. Attard confirms that when he met the Defendant he was
3 steps 9 feet approximately away from his car facing each other. He was facing the Punto the Defendant at the Sierra. Mr.
Attard states that he and the Defendant fought for a minute and a half, (version 1): with the first punch he landed on his
bonnet (version 2): the first punch was near his mudguard and from here onto his bonnet. I was not in front of the car but
on the side the dents of the bonnet were done with my head. (version 3): The second hit I was standing still I was normal.
Mr. Attard claims that while on his bonnet he heard Ramona scream „Stop it, Stop it‟ before he went running around his
car. He had blood in one eye, before he took out his handkerchief he heard Mr. Shepherd say “leave my friend” he heard
only this and no other phrases! He did not see his wife. (version 4): After being hit 3 times I escaped on the other side and
after the Defendant who had finished with Mr. Shepherd he then grabbed me again on the other side. {After you got hit 3
times you went running around your car where was the Defendant at that time} “Running after me”. {You already got hit
and you are doing everything to escape from him} “Right” The Court {and the Defendant was running after you}?
“Right”. Then I saw Mr. Shepherd on the floor blurred I did nothing because a man started to help him and he did not run
after me anymore I still don‟t know where my wife is. {When Mr. R Briffa came what were you doing, where were you}?
“I was in the front” of the Sierra. {What was the Defendant doing at that moment}? “I think that he started to run, I have
no idea”. {So when Mr. R Briffa came you were not near the Defendant}? “No” I do not remember anything I tried to
escape from him only that. {Did you touch the Defendant}? “NO, for no reason whatsoever”. {And the bite on the
Defendants finger}? It can be the case because at that moment in time I do not know what I was doing. I tried to escape but
he did not give me a chance to escape he tried to hold me and hit me and that‟s all I remember.

2. In conclusion it has never been denied that the accused in self defence fought back with Mr. Attard and the fact that he
was struck 3 times is not and was not ever denied of which is confirmed medically from Dr Sawinski Wodjdeck
testimony 16 May 2003 which supports that Mr. Attard was indeed struck just twice resulting in a bruise to his
forehead and approximately one centimetre lacerated wound over his left eyebrow.

It is indeed collaborated that there was one fight only between the accused and Mr. Attard which was witnesses
by the Briffas coming to its end of which it is reasonably apparent that this fight lasted a minute and a half which
is supported by the fact that Victoria took a little time to release her seatbelt after which the fight between the
accused and Mr. Attard was over, as was also the altercation between the accused and Mr. Ruben Briffa.

3. Following it is humbly submitted of the obvious inaccuracies and contradictions in the descriptions reproduced in the
judgement from the testimonies of Mr. Attard in 1. AA5, AA5 a, and AA5 b & c:
 The Fist & the Biting - which will be addressed later in [Page 31 - [AA7], & Page 31 - [AA7 a].

 The Fighting exchange - from the complainant to the accused, addressed in the Defence submissions (page 7).

 The Fighting exchange - from the accused to the complainant, addressed in the Defence submissions (page 7).

 Being Thrown or Falling or Punched on the bonnet:
In [AA5] - (Mr. Attards version 1: Police Statement) Mr. Attard alleges that he was thrown onto his bonnet of his
Ford Sierra vehicle.

[AA5 a] - (Mr. Attards version 2: Court testimony 03) I then sort of lost consciousness for a few moments and fell
on the bonnet of my Sierra for a few seconds only because then I regained consciousness, while I was on the bonnet I heard
a girl (Ramona) shouting „Stop it, Stop it‟ from the direction of the Defendants Punto, I saw the blood, I took out my
handkerchief to stop my eyes from the blood.

[AA5 b] - (Mr. Attards version 3: Court testimony 03) The Court {you told us you slightly lost consciousness}
“there were a few seconds for sure where I do not know what happened”. The Court {then you tried to escape from him
from behind the car and when you arrived from behind the car it was there that you saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground}? “I
saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground then”. {And the Defendant was running after you behind the car}? “Yes”.

[AA5 c] - (Mr. Attards version 4: Court testimony 09) He was facing the Punto the Defendant at the Sierra. Mr.
Attard states that he and the Defendant fought for a minute and a half, (version 1): with the first punch he landed on his
bonnet (version 2): the first punch was near his mudguard and from here onto his bonnet. I was not in front of the car but
on the side the dents of the bonnet were done with my head. (version 3): The second hit I was standing still I was normal.
Mr. Attard claims that while on his bonnet he heard Ramona scream „Stop it, Stop it‟ before he went running around his
car. He had blood in one eye, before he took out his handkerchief he heard Mr. Shepherd say “leave my friend” he heard
only this and no other phrases! He did not see his wife. (version 4): After being hit 3 times I escaped on the other side and
after the Defendant who had finished with Mr. Shepherd he then grabbed me again on the other side. {After you got hit 3
times you went running around your car where was the Defendant at that time} “Running after me”. {You already got hit
and you are doing everything to escape from him} “Right” The Court {and the Defendant was running after you}?
“Right”.

In summary Mr. Attard (first) said he was thrown, then (second) that he fell, then (third) that he slightly lost consciousness
and for a few seconds did not know what happened, then (forth) he has 6 different variations of action on how he
supposedly got punched and landed on his bonnet unconscious. In all here exists 3 distinctively opposing variations each in
their own right exposing utter contradiction and the physical impossibilities of the false assertions made by Mr. Attard and
favoured by the magistrate contrary to the Articles of Law that have been used as reference by the same magistrate,
Statures in Law and assumed Law that the presumption of innocence is always in favour of the accused.

Thrown?:
In reality it is hard to believe that a man (Mr. Attard) of such size and weight (5 ft 11 inches and weighing 100 kilos) would
not resist such an attempt? Mr. Attard is not a weightlifting bar or something manageable to manoeuvre. Especially that the
accused at (6 ft weighing 69 kilos) making him just 1 inch taller but 30 kilos lighter in stature, equating to such an
accusation being impossible; there are no grappling marks scratching or bruising on the complainants person to suggest that
his 100 kilo weight had been lifted or suspended from any anchor point on his extremities or otherwise. The sheer 30 kilo
weight difference making Mr. Attard a heavyweight and the accused a lightweight would make such a incredibly feat of
strength by the accused possibly the strongest Homo sapien ever known to Humanity!
Mr. Attard has claimed that the Defendant had a fist whilst walking towards them and he immediately (version 1): got
punched in his left eye and while fighting back he was thrown on his bonnet?

Ms. Attard has stated: that the Defendant slammed her husband on the bonnet and then she immediately pushed the
Defendant back into his Punto. There was no more fighting between the defendant and her husband .

Ms. Shepherd has stated: that the Defendant missed and then picked up and threw Mr. Attard on the bonnet in front of her?
/ (2) He hit him with a fist turning and raising his legs?

Mr. Shepherd has stated: (1) that he did see and went for boxing / (2) that he did not see as he was checking the car?

Ramona has stated: she and Ms. Attard were trying to separate the fight, there is no reference to Mr. Attard being
unconscious or thrown on his bonnet.

All the Briffas witnessed Mr. Attard and the Defendant fighting, there is no reference to Mr. Attard being unconscious or
thrown on his bonnet.

In conclusion this version of Mr. Attard is impossible as explained above although Ms. Attard & Ms. Shepherd who
emphasis that I picked up Mr. Attard from the ground which further compounds the utter impossibility of such a
probability. The collaboration of the accused and Ramona and 4 persons of the Briffa family all match and support each
other. Mr. Attard was never thrown on his bonnet or unconscious as he was witnessed by all collaborators to be fighting
with the accused in front of the Sierra. Further Mr. Attard discredits Ms. Shepherd, Ms. Attard and himself by
contradictorily claiming that he fell on his bonnet?

Fell?:
This is distinctively different from the previous version. Being thrown is impossible for all the reasons explained. It is of
course possible for Mr. Attard to have fallen on his bonnet. But this version of falling only discredits Ms. Shepherds, Ms.
Attards & Mr. Attards false assertions on oath of being thrown. Mr. Attard claimed (version 2): got hit 3 times for sure
when he sort of lost consciousness and fell on his bonnet for 2 seconds? It is again submitted of the collaboration of the
accused and Ramona and 4 persons of the Briffa family all match and support each other. Mr. Attard was never on his
bonnet or unconscious as he was witnessed by all collaborators to be fighting with the accused in front of the Sierra.
Further Mr. Attard discredits himself by contradictorily claiming that he was punched and landed on his bonnet?

Punched?:
Again this is distinctively from the 2 previous assertions. Mr. Attard has claimed that (version 3): the Defendant kept on
hitting, he tried to hurl a blow here and there but I could not see, he hit the Defendant maybe just once? (version 4): with
the first punch he landed on his bonnet (version 5): the first punch was near his mudguard and from here onto his bonnet
(version 6): the second hit I was standing still I was normal? But these versions of punching only discredits Ms. Shepherds,
Ms. Attards & Mr. Attards false assertions on oath of being thrown or falling.

Version 4 - Mr. Attard stated that he had advanced on to the accused 9 feet which would make this version impossible for
two reasons (1) as a 69 kilo man to with a punch launch a 100 kilo man through the air of such a distance and height as to
land on the bonnet of the Sierra unconscious is unbelievable. (2) the damage from such a force to Mr. Attards head or eye
and his neck would be devastating of which Mr. Attard has no such injuries neither does he to his back of head, shoulders
or back, elbows, legs or feet etc from the impact of landing.

Version 4 - further is in direct conflict with the episodes of version 3, version 5 and version 6.

It is again submitted of the collaboration of the accused and Ramona and 4 persons of the Briffa family all match and
support each other. Mr. Attard was never on his bonnet or unconscious as he was witnessed by all collaborators to be
fighting with the accused in front of the Sierra.

This collaboration is not in the complainants versions or instances in tune with the Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta and its
clauses of the guiding principles for those who have to judge the facts, the demeanour, conduct, and character of the
witnesses, to the probability, consistency, and other features of his statement, to the corroboration which may be
forthcoming from other testimony, and to all the circumstances of the case.

Page 31 - [AA6], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the 6 versions. The Defence insists that not only
are there 6 versions of specifically different described actions some of which are physically impossible and are not
supported medically in essence devoid of injury to substantiate the force of the action alleged, there are 3 very different
instances as described fully in all their glory of contention in „Being Thrown or Falling or Punched on the bonnet‟.

It is insufficient for the magistrate against the standards prescribed in Law to assert that Mr. Attard albeit in different words
or expressions has sufficed in her belief that this accumulates to one version of the same. Especially as none of Mr. Attards
3 instances and 6 variations up to his alleged landing on the bonnet has been collaborated by himself or his party of
complainants. The accused on the other had in fact does have collaboration from himself, Ramona and the 4 party of the
Briffas, who incredibly are associates or at least know of Mr. Attard.

Page 31 - [AA6 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to a second assault on Mr. Attard?
It is indeed collaborated that there was one fight only between the complainant and the accused and it is reasonably
apparent that this fight lasted a minute and a half. It has been substantiated by absolutely everyone involved that the fight
was in front of the Sierra. The moment that this fight ended is according to:

Mr. Attard has stated that he had 3 hits and medically it would appear he had 2 hits, according to Mr. Attard the moment he
lost consciousness for 2 seconds this fight was over, he then heard Ramona scream Stop it, Stop it while on his bonnet and
then he went around his car and alleges he was hit twice there, of which there are no witnesses to this and no medical
certification to substantiate any such injuries.

When this „fight stopped‟ at this fundamental moment it is alleged by Mr. Attard that for 2 seconds only he slightly lost
consciousness and claims not to know what happened otherwise the rest of the whole time previously he was engaged with
the Defendant and did not see or hear or know what happened to Mr. Shepherd?

When this „fight stopped‟ slightly to the contrary is Ms. Shepherd and Ms. Attard the same, the latter on probing from the
Court {so you mean that the Englishman grabbed your husband and slammed him on the bonnet of the car of your
husband}? “Yes, then I started to push the Englishman to leave us alone”. Thus confirming that at this fundamental
moment she has ushered the Defendant back into his Punto. (Ms. Shepherd claims when this „fight stopped‟ is when Mr.
Shepherd was kicked and unconscious and not that Mr. Attard was slammed on his bonnet is the moment when Ms. Attard
told the accused to go police etc?).

The other party of Accusers the Briffa‟s testimony reveals that they witnessed Mr. Shepherd lying on the ground alongside
the left hand side of the Sierra vehicle while Mr. Attard and the Defendant were engaged in fighting in front of the Ford
Sierra and two woman were running and screaming, on arriving the fighting stopped and everything calmed down.

The Defence „Ramona‟ declares; that she and the Accuser Ms. Attard as woman were trying to stop the Defendant Tristan
and the Accuser Mr. Attard from fighting, when the other one Mr. Shepherd was on the ground the fight stopped, it calmed
down, there was myself, Tristan & Ms. Attard, there was distance between Mr. Attard.

In conclusion it is evidentially supported and overwhelmingly collaborated that there was no second incident with Mr.
Attard further reducing his credibility and exposing the inaccurate presumption to believe in him from which prevailed a
guilty verdict holding the accused incarcerated against the virtues specified in Law.

Page 31 - [AA7], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „situation 1 - the Bite‟.
The Defence insists that this judgement does not address the matter submitted in the submissions of the Defence at (page
7 no1) but completely ignores the vital disclosure this crucial aspect presents;

Testimonies: Mr. Attard - no reference / (added after that) the Defendant came with a fist? Ms. Attard - * no reference. Mr.
Shepherd - * no reference. Ms. Shepherd - the Defendant came with a fist.

Then how? If the Defendant has a fist to fight did he get bitten? He had to have been bitten before he made a fist!
Which proves the Accusers are selectively leaving crucial information out from the enquiry. Mr. Attards account of
not grabbing the Defendant around the neck is implausible for the specific following reasons his claim is contested by
medical proof of bruising around the neck of the Defendant and is also consistent with how the Defendant was bitten and
then punched in the face. It is also to be noted that in breach of Articles 356 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta this medica l
certification validating the strangulation, the bite and a punch in the face amongst other injuries suffered by the accused,
was omitted by the prosecution contrary to the definition specified in the Articles. This was never made available to the
Defence until 2009. Importantly to also note is that the version honestly professed by the accused who could not have
known what was written by the doctor in his medical assessment matches explicitly and precisely!

Unlike Mr. Attards 6 versions of specifically different described actions and the 3 very different instances as described
fully in all their glory of contention in „Being Thrown or Falling or Punched on the bonnet‟. The accused has always
maintained just one version of events that after checking his car he then proceeded to walk in the direction behind, it was
dark with no street lighting and being on 60 km phr road he was very aware of the immediate and present danger from the
centre of the road so the accused turned his head to confirm the relatively safety from on coming traffic from the opposite
direction on doing so he was suddenly being strangled from behind from someone very strong. The accused could not
breath and had to do something to survive, he managed to get his left arm up between his neck and Mr. Attards choke hold,
he pushed his hand backwards into the face of Mr. Attard and managed to create enough space to swivel around while Mr.
Attard was still biting his finger, he was then punched in the face by Mr. Attard and it is from exactly here that the accuser
started to fight back with punches.

The Defence submits to the Honourable Court that the Defendant on being taken from behind unawares in fear and
frightened, of being strangled and without breath, he only reacted in self defence to escape from being attacked by Mr.
Attards strangle hold around the Defendants neck of which there is medically certified proof of, in the process of escaping
this, the Accuser Mr. Attard then bit the Defendant again of which there is medically certified proof of and punched him
square in the face. The injury there after of Mr. Attards bruise and 1 centimetre approx cut on his eyebrow resulted from
Mr. Attard initial attack and therefore comes under the distinct provisions of the Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code Laws of
Malta applicable legal definitions; 223, 224, 227, 230, 231, 232. 233.

Page 31 - [AA7 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „situation 1 - the waving of Mr. Attards
hands‟.
The Defence submitted in their submissions (page 7) that: Mr. Attard in his testimonies started with denying that he
touched the accused. It is to be noted in the magistrates presented account that Mr. Attard waved his hands to defend
himself is (1) inaccurate as Mr. Attard has himself not stated such and (2) people do not try waving their hands around in
order to defend themselves. It is apparent that the magistrate has not grasped the fact that if the accusers hands were
in a fist and was immediately punching from which Mr. Attard became allegedly unconscious, there is no possible
way that the bite injury to the underside of his finger could occur. Here it appears that she has confused the issue by her
response in this judgement that it was the accused whose hands were waving and thus this is how Mr. Attard managed to
bite him? Of which of course is also incorrect.
In conclusion this all further puts Mr. Attards 3 instances and 6 versions of action into further disrepute as it is crystal clear
of the impossibility of any of the instances or versions of action alleged to accommodate the injuries sustained by the
accused.

Page 31 - [AA8], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „situation 2 - the Dents‟.
The Defence submitted in their submissions (page 8 no1) that: common sense would prevail without the need for a
physicist especially considering the facts that prove the accused is undoubtedly innocent. Then there are the further
following pertaining reasons; (1) Mr. Attard has 2 injuries from punches that are not denied as a result of provocation etc.
but he has no other injuries which undoubtedly would have had to result from the alleged force of his head impacting the
metal bonnet creating the dents. (2) Mr. Attard has allegedly in 3 specifically different instances „Thrown, Fell, Punched‟
landed on the bonnet on one occasion, all of which have not been collaborated but severely contradicted by this party of
complainants. There is however a consistent collaboration of 6 individuals who have witnessed Mr. Attard fighting in front
of the Sierra until this fight stopped, none of these 6 witnesses have seen Mr. Attard „Thrown, Falling or Punched or
unconscious or on his bonnet‟. (3) There are 5 dents on his car with 3 on the bonnet, it is certain that Mr. Attard does not
have 5 or 3 heads to have created these dents and he has not obviously been by way of „Thrown, Fell, Punched‟ landed on
his bonnet 5 or 3 times. (4) Which leaves the question then how did these 5 dents really appear? (5) Mr. Attard asserts that
it was his *5 kilo head that created these dents? If his head was capable of making these dents then how could his *95 kilo
body not make any dents in the bonnet? Especially when one considers that Ms. Attard said he was slammed into the
bonnet?

An accompanying note regarding the unnecessary use of a physicist. Without actually needing one as it is commonly
known as core principle of science „Neutons Law‟ that for every action there is a reaction as explained in the defence
submissions (page 17 no4) therefore Mr. Shepherds false explanation and the belief in it is opposing the fundamentals of
science and thus the virtues of Law & Justice.

Page 32 - [AA9], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „floored & unconsciousness‟.
The Defence submitted in their submissions (page 8) that: none of the 6 individual witnesses have seen Mr. Attard thrown,
falling, on the bonnet or unconscious. All these witnesses have stated that they saw Mr. Attard and the accused fighting in
front of the Sierra while Mr. Shepherd was along side the vehicle some distance away laid out flat.

There is no medical evidence or statements made to inquisitive medical probing to support Mr. Attards alleged
unconsciousness. Neither does Ms. Shepherd support this false claim nor does Ms. Attard. It would without doubt be
unreasonable behaviour if it was true that Mr. Attard was unconscious for his wife Ms. Attard to unnaturally leave her
husbands in such a vulnerable state, (she is ushering the accused back to the Punto with Ramona) to note Ms. Shepherd did
not leave her husbands side and Ramona did not leave the Defendants side.

Important to note that Ms. Attard has two versions (1) that she immediately ushered the accused back to his Punto saying
go the police and (2) that she just told the accused go the police and he went with Ramona on his own accord and she went
to tend to Mr. Shepherd. Which is again unnatural behaviour? Why would she not tend if it were true to her unconscious
husband Mr. Attard?

In conclusion there is far more evidence which is consistent which is not contradicted and is collaborated to support the
accused versions that Mr. Attard was never in any manner unconscious on his bonnet.

Page 32 - [AA9 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to not finding anything peculiar in the fact that
Mr. Attards momentary loss of consciousness, did not result in his collapse.

Firstly it is inaccurate for the magistrate to carelessly assume this is fact by stating so without supportive evidence or
collaboration when it is only alleged by Mr. Attard himself contrary to 9 other individuals. Secondly there is a
disagreement of terms in the magistrates own wording - loss of consciousness that does not result in a humans collapse?

The Defence insists that presumed common sense itself would not lend itself to such a notion and professionally
there is not a medically trained individual in the world that would agree with the magistrate!

Page 32 - [AA9 b], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „evidentially the width of the bonnet was
sufficient‟.
The Defence insists that this is most irregular (1) as the magistrate has on Page 31 - [AA8] situation 2 „Dents‟ the need for
a physicist to explore the force required to create such dents and (2) that the Courts further pronouncement with regard to
lack of expert evidence on this issue. How then can the same magistrate exert evidentially without such expert opinion of a
physicist or engineer or Ford Sierra expert or accurate diagrams of the specifications of the bonnet or a mathematician to
calculate the weight of Mr. Attards head resting on the bonnet in relation to any of the 3 dents position? The distance of this
position measured to the end of the bonnet and calculated into the ratio of Mr. Attards body weight pulling on his head
resting in a dent to actually know that what the magistrate assumingly claims is actually true?

Considering that Mr. Attard is 5 ft 11 inches and 100 kilos and his bonnet with a rough guess is around *3 ft and
considering that Mr. Attard said he was standing in front of his car facing the accused, then if it was true which it has been
repeatedly proven not too be but to accommodate the magistrates assumptions, without the photo evidence to pinpoint a
chosen dent but lets be fair and assume its in the middle of the bonnet then with one and a half feet of distance through
rough deduction its reasonably clear that Mr. Attards *5 kilo head would not hold its *95 kilo body as his 5 ft 11 inches
frame is resting on the support of just a foot and a half of bonnet, it is therefore safe to conclude that the other 4 and a half
feet approx of Mr. Attards body is not resting on the bonnet and if unconscious his unsupported part of his body would
naturally collapse involuntary to the ground.

And as the magistrate has on Page 32 - [AA9] stated “The evidence tendered by Mr. Attard shows that he was never
floored…” illustrating that the magistrates judgement is seriously flawed as is her belief in him as Mr. Attard through crude
but obvious maths proves again the false claimed assertions to the detriment of Justice and the accused!

Page 32 - [AA10], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „blood swabs‟.
The Defence submitted in their submissions (page 8 no2) that: if Mr. Attard was bleeding profusely from his left eye how is
it possible then that the Magisterial Inquiry found no accumulation of blood to match the descriptions.

Mr. Attard has in version in action #3 stated that he tried to hurl a blow here and there but I could not see, I do not think I
hit the accused maybe just once. This contradicts the other versions of actions but importantly if there was so much blood
that he could not see then if he was unconscious on the bonnet where is this transfer of spewing blood?

Mr. Shepherd has stated that Mr. Attard was (page 2) I saw my friend skinned like a rabbit blood his face could not be seen,
(page 7) on the bonnet sprawled his face full of blood you could not recognise him, (page 29) I found him butchered like a
skinned rabbit covered in blood). Importantly if there was so much blood where is this transfer of spewing blood?

Ms. Shepherd I saw the accused punch but Mr. Attard avoided it, then the Defendant threw Mr. Attard on the bonnet in
front of me *no reference to blood? Ms. Attard *no reference to blood.

After this fight stopped both the accused and Ramona and Mr. Ruben Briffa state that Mr. Attard had blood on his face but
he was not on his bonnet in any manner or unconscious. This is further substantiated by serologist Robert Cardona and his
blood swabs and the photographic evidence which proves again that the alleged unconsciousness on the bonnet is false.

There was a *swab taken from the windscreen yet Mr. Attard was not on windscreen, meaning that if a *swab was taken
from the bonnet it does not conclude that Mr. Attard was on his bonnet, as there was *swabs taken from the door, the rear
of the car and none of these places is it claimed that he rested unconscious.

Page 32 - [AB1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „intervention‟.
The Defence insists that the magistrates assessment and presentation absolutely proves the innocence of the accused
which is found here in the terms in the magistrates own findings. The magistrates guilty judgement with regards to
Mr. Shepherd contradicts her own findings and assertions.

[AB1 a] Mr. Attard states that he lost consciousness for a few seconds. This may be the reason for his not having
seen the assault on his wife and Mr. Shepherd.

[AB1 b] and the reason why his wife, the Brifa‟s (4 individuals) and Mr. Shepherd failed to notice Attards
transient loss of consciousness.

1. With specific regards to [AB1 b] the magistrate is revealing to hypothesis of the same exact instant of 2 seconds the
only moment that Mr. Attard does not know what the accused might have done during this brief 2 second duration as
all other times he was engaged with the accused for the 1 and a half minute that they fought. During these 2 seconds
are present all the Briffas who have emphatically stated that Mr. Shepherd was already on the ground laying flat along
the side of the Sierra towards the rear while a big man Mr. Attard and the accused were fighting in a position in front
of the Sierra some distance away.

This positively proves that (1) Mr. Attard was not unconscious for 2 seconds and (2) during the false supposed 2
seconds the accused did not and categorically could not have perpetrated any of the alleged aggression on Mr.
Shepherd a fact also collaborated by Ramona and the accused.

Incidentally this fact is also collaborated by Ms. Attard somewhat warped in detail but in action the moment her husband
was supposedly on the bonnet in other words the end of the fight she immediately ushered the accused back to the Punto
saying go police etc.

2. With specific regards to [AB1 a] The Defence submitted in their submissions (page 8 no3) that: if he was unconscious
how would he know in which of the 3 contradictory instances he landed on his bonnet? Further if Mr. Attard was
unconscious then how could he know that there was any intervention?

In Mr. Attards initial inquiry he stated he knows Mr. Shepherd came out to help by trying to hold back this person.
Testimony 03 Mr. Shepherd did not come out of the car because I told them stay here, I will take of this myself, as Mr.
Shepherd suffers from fits and must not get worried because if he worries he gets a fit. / I know Mr. Shepherd came out he
was trying to hold me first then he went to hold the Defendant to separate us. Testimony 09 he heard Mr. Shepherd say
“leave my friend” he heard only this and no other phrases!

Although there is in actuality a distinct difference between first seeing and the just hearing, However firstly Ms. Shepherd
- stated it was Ms. Attard that intervened to stop the fight? Ms. Attard stated Mr. Attard and the Defendant were standing in
front of the bonnet, Mr. Shepherd was almost exactly in front of the bonnet, he wasn‟t far away because we were 3 together
to hold him, myself and Mr. Shepherd were almost next to each other. During this time Mr. Shepherd did not touch the
Defendant and my husband began holding the Defendant saying in English “remember we have a handicapped woman” no
excuse me at first my husband spoke in Maltese. No one held the Defendant only me. My husband did not hold him he
didn‟t do anything because at that moment he was stopping the blood from his head? Mr. Shepherd - I did not go to
separate them, no, no, no, no? In all there explanations again exists major contradictions?

If it is supposed that Mr. Attard heard Mr. Shepherd then if his wife was standing right as stated in her own testimony then
how could it be possible for Mr. Attard not to have heard anything from his wife?

Page 33 - [AB2], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „the evidence tendered by Mr. Shepherd‟.
The Defence insists that the magistrates presentation is incorrect;

[AB2 a] Mr. Shepherd has always denied that Ms. Attard told him anything as he was already out their vehicle. In
fact Ms. Attards various versions do not play a part nor is there reference to anything that she claims.

[AB2 b] it is omitted that Mr. Shepherd stated I was the only one to exit the car and I checked the vehicle for
damage for 5 or 6 min and then walked 6 metres to hear what was being said? Not that when he was checking the car all of
a sudden he saw the accused attacking Attard.

[AB2 c] Mr. Shepherd - V1 he was hit twice in the head and then the defendant spun around and kicked him 3
times in the chest? V2 he was hit once in the head and kicked in the ribs and belly? V3 Professor Godfrey Laferla -
Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke‟s Hospital “from the Hospital history records
taken from Mr. Shepherd who said he was allegedly involved in a fight and he was injured over the back of his head, which
is called the octsput, he alleged that he was kicked (singular meaning once) hard in the left flank etc”. V4 He kicked me in
my face by the cheeks and punched me in my chest?

Note: These are 4 very different alleged descriptions; to reason with Mr. Shepherds versions, yet incredibly he has no
injury swelling, bruising, cuts or abrasions to his face or head only on the back of his head which is in a place impossible to
have been received by the accused. As presented in the submissions of the Defence on (page 14).

Important a person can only be knocked unconscious from a blow to the head this is the biological mechanics of a knock
out, in all boxing matches etc. it is only a blow to the head that results in unconsciousness. It is further supported that a
fractured rib would not result in a knock out and loss of consciousness, therefore if Mr. Shepherd was punched or kicked in
the head (no medical certification of such) to have been knocked unconscious then he would not know he was then later
kicked etc. Further if so Mr. Shepherd would not have remained standing to have received any kicks in the alternative
versions he proposes. Also Mr. Shepherd would have dropped to the ground on the spot in a tangled heap in front of the
Sierra of which is not where he was while Mr. Attard and the accused were fighting.

[AB2 d] is incorrectly presented by the magistrate, in fact Mr. Shepherd has stated “I think they picked me up from
the ground”. If so then Mr. Shepherd contradicts himself by claiming, the Courts {and when you regained consciousness,
what do you remember and where were you}? “In Hospital. I said what am I doing here”. (The contradiction). “I remained
confused for around three days, I did not even know I was in Hospital”.

[AB2 e] is incorrectly presented by the magistrate, in fact on questioning Mr. Shepherd could not say on which
bonnet was Mr. Attard?

[AB2 f] of Mr. Shepherd confirming that he did not touch the accused in its presentation here goes against the
assertions made in the magistrates previous presentations in her judgement on (page 30) [AB1] that the Court fails to see
the questions being posed by the Defence as the evidence shows that Attard testified that Mr. Shepherd intervened in an
effort to stop the fight.

[AB2 g] it is as stated above in all of [AB2 c] impossible to have collapsed unconscious from the forms of alleged
actions performed on Mr. Shepherd.

Page 33 - [AB3], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „the four versions‟.
The Defence insists that this is most irregular for the following vital reasons;
1. If in a minute and a half approximately the accused who has always maintained and never denied that he fought with
Mr. Attard in self defence inflicted 2 wounds a bruise and a 1 cm approx cut on the eyebrow, and by Mr Attards own
admission 3 hits he received? Then how as it is submitted in the Defence submissions (page 14) could it be possible in
the supposed 2 seconds of the false claim of Mr. Attard, that the accused could inflict version #1 as reportedly the
accused had to leave Mr. Attard listen to Mr. Shepherd say “leave my friend alone” before apparently the accused
punched Mr. Shepherd in the face/head twice, then he listened to Ms. Attard say varyingly “leave him alone” or “why
are you doing this” to version 1 punch her in the face or version 2 elbow her in the eye? To then return to Mr.
Shepherd who has not heard or witnessed any performed action to what Ms. Attard falsely claims who is apparently
standing right next to him, still standing to the only infliction that could if it were true cause his unconsciousness, the
accused spun around and kicked (either leg) him 3 times in the chest where he collapses.

Firstly in estimation this would take around 30 seconds to perform which is longer than the 2 seconds of Mr. Attards
supposed not knowing? With 5 strikes to Mr. Shepherd yielding no injuries or marks of any kind to his face or his chest? In
a much shorter duration than the 1 and a half minutes for the 2 strikes to Mr. Attard which caused injury. There is a pattern
of inconsistency. Also to note there is no way if it were true that he was kicked in the chest would he have remained in the
same place to receive 2 more.

Version #2 in the same context; but he was hit once in the head and then the accused spun around and kicked (right leg)
him in the ribs and belly. Again although different it is only the hit to the head that could have rendered Mr. Shepherd
unconscious and if so he would not have known about the ribs and belly and would have collapsed in the front of the Sierra
in a heap. If a person is kicked in the belly they lurch forward yet Mr. Shepherd was found laid out straight on his back
along the side of the Sierra near the rear. A kick to a rib could fracture a rib and this Mr. Shepherd has but there would be
bruising or reddening from the width of the foot or leg. Yet Mr. Shepherd has no injuries to his head or belly or bruising or
reddening from a foot or leg kicking?

Vesion #3 he claims to have been kicked (left leg) in the face by the right cheeks and several punches with a fist on my
chest and punches in the face then he fell. A kick powerful to fracture a rib as in version #2 would certainly cause major
damage and swelling in the face and more than any punch would certainty knock out any person. Again although different
it is only the kick to the head that could have rendered Mr. Shepherd unconscious and if so he would not have known about
the punches to the chest and would have collapsed in the front of the Sierra in a heap. A kick that powerful would have sent
him flying he would not have been found laying on his back etc. Again Mr. Shepherd yields no injuries or marks of any
kind to his face or his chest in accordance with the actions claimed to have been performed?

Version #4 reported by Professor Godfrey Laferla from the hospital notes which describes another version. Interestingly in
contradiction is Dr Nicole Camilleri testified that Mr. Shepherd gave her no indication to what had happened, the Court
{did he give you any indication}? “No”. Which is again in direct contradiction with her superiors and very odd as the
Professor has clarified that Mr. Shepherd confirmed himself that he was actually involved in a fight?

2. Clearly Ms. Attard was stuck unintentionally in the melee either by her husband or the accused as explained in the
Defence submissions through (pages 10 - 12). Clearly Mr. Ruben Briffa was struck and lost 2 teeth this has neither
ever been denied by the accused as he defended himself from the rock that Ruben tried to thrust into his head. Clearly
Mr. Attard has been struck and also has injuries and this to has never been denied by the accused. Therefore the
inconsistency is that Mr. Shepherd declares that he has been struck yet he does not have the injuries to substantiate the
alleged performance in his 4 very different versions upon him.

In conclusion the magistrate has ignored the Articles and their provisions of Law, the conflictions and the fact that the
alleged physical force is not matched at all by injuries with medical verification. That the accused has no injuries either
referring to the assaults described. There is also the obvious that the accused has not denied fighting with Mr. Attard & Mr.
Ruben Briffa so why deny Mr. Shepherd there is inconsistency in this pattern, further inconsistency in this pattern is why
has the accused not kicked Mr. Attard & Mr. Briffa? This inconsistency in the pattern goes further Mr. Attard received 2
Mr. Briffa 1 strike so why has Mr. Shepherd received depending on which distinctively different version is to be believed
and the alleged kicking (stated by Ms. Attard & Ms. Shepherd) while he was on the ground up to 10 strikes approx? Which
also does not account for any physical consequential injury or medical verification of such? And this alleged action would
extend the 30 seconds performance even further, meaning that Mr. Attard would have if it were true seen something?

3. To importantly note the untruthful deliberations and exaggerations of the complainants where there were witnesses to
the same incident thereby collaborating the performance and exposing the perjury being committed by Ms. Attard &
Ms. Shepherd.

Example 1: The accused himself stated that after the rock incident with Mr. Ruben Briffa he did jump up and
down wondering what the hell was next?
Mr. Attard stated - “I can not describe what happened exactly but he was making movements like those made in
boxing. He was like inviting me to fight”.
Ms. Shepherd - “he was jumping like this, sort of inviting them”.
Mr. R Biffa - “In fact he kept hoping like a boxer on a ring hopping like as if he was challenging you”.
X - Ms. Attard - “He was dancing that is kicking with his legs jumping and kicking like boxing”.

Example 2: X - Ms. Shepherd - “The accused started hitting Mr. Attard with his fist raising his legs turning
raising his legs like those of Martial Arts. No one not even Mr. Attard has stated any such thing.

In conclusion these two examples are testament to the perverted and false allegations tantamount to perjury by the
complainants against collaboration and the truth required for justice to be honoured.

Page 33 - [AB4], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „minor inconsistencies‟.
The Defence insists that when there are major contradictions it cannot be considered as minor as it exposes deliberate lies
that could have easily been created by conferring and thus not true in reality meaning there is no credibility as a witness. It
also determines who was actually present or not to hear or witness something at a specific moment in time and this in
accordance with the Law cannot be considered as minor;

Ms. Attard has various versions (version A) that she remained in the car while Mr. Shepherd exited and confronted the
Defendant and gets punched, kicked and laid on the ground seeing this she went out her vehicle to stop the fight, or
(version B) Mr. Shepherd was still in their car until she (version 1) told him “David come down so that we will assist them”
or (version 2) “come on get out, because he will kill him” while her husband was fighting with the Defendant in front of the
Sierra and that she exited exactly with Mr. Shepherd, or (version C) {Madame your husband told this Court that he finished
on the bonnet before you got out, now you are saying that that you were hit before your husband was thrown on the
bonnet} we had already got out and he threw him on the bonnet, we went out at that time because he was hitting him on the
bonnet, no the Defendant did not hit him again.

Mr. Shepherd makes no reference at all to any of Ms. Attards versions in fact he contradicts her completely, first
importantly she plays no part in his version which implies that all Ms. Attard has claimed is untruthful and that she is fully
capable of creating perverted versions. As she and her husband have demonstrated by smashing and planting her glasses at
an incident site thus perverting the course of justice. This all confirms that she is not credible as a witness and a innocent
man should not be detained in prison on her fictitious assertions.

V1 - not available?

V2 -Mr. Shepherds Court testimony 03 - while he went out to check the car, he then decided to see what Mr. Attard and the
accused were saying

V3 - Mr. Shepherds Court testimony 03 - he claims that; {When you went out of the car, after your friend Mr. Attard was
already out, where was Mr. Attard}? On the bonnet like this sprawled. The Court {On the bonnet of his car or the
Defendants car}? “I don’t know, I don’t know which car. I know his face was full of blood you could not recognise him”.

V4 - Mr. Shepherds version 4: Court testimony 03 - he claims that; the Court {so the Defendant was in front of you}? “Yes
of course. Then Mr. Attard saw him coming, he went to speak to him, I went down to see what had happened to the car. I
went near them to see what was happening because they were speaking, all of a sudden I saw that butchery”. {Mr. Attard
and the Defendant were in fact talking to each other right}? “Yes but I did not realise that I would find him butchered up
like a skinned rabbit, covered in blood from up here”, {So that we can understand you better, when the fight started you
were not there, right}? “No”. {You were walking to go and see what was being said} “but I saw him striking with his
hands”. {So you were not going to listen}? “No I went to fight then! I went for boxing then!”. {So you went out, you went
round the car to see the damages, then you decided to go and see what was being said. How many paces had you made
before you saw these movements which you recounted to me? Do you remember how far you walked}? The Court {that is
you walked around 5 or 6 metres}? “Not exactly, it can be more”. {All of a sudden from words there was action}? “No, he
was already sprawled on the bonnet like this, here covered in blood”. The Court {but this is when you arrived on him}?
“Yes”. The Court {do you know who striked with his hands first Sir? Do you know how the fight started? Do you know
who hit first}? “No”.

V5 - Mr. Shepherds version 3: Court testimony 09 - he claims that; That after Mr. Attard went out he was the only one to
exit their car. That he was checking the damage of their Sierra for 5 or 6 minutes when Mr. Attard was on the bonnet but I
did not see him being beaten, I do not know they fought, I did not try to separate Mr. Attard and the Defendant and I did
not hear any shouting, I can only remember Mr. Attards face with blood.

These all destroy Mr. Attards account of being immediately punched etc. and the belief the magistrate had in his
exposed feeble alleged versions. And of course there is also Mr. Attard who stated my wife and Mr. Shepherd had not
come out of the Sierra because he suffers with epilepsy and would get a fit.

In conclusion where is the consistency, the collaboration, all vital components in establishing the truth through stature of
Laws which are evidentially being considered as minor here by the magistrate when with reference made to these ver y
Laws they should not be ignored.

Page 34 - [AC1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the „accused‟. The Defence insists that the
magistrate is presenting factually incorrect assertions;

[AC1 a], the magistrate here states that the accused stated that Attard was the first to get of his car? The Defence
insists after reading through my statement (received on the 3 February 2010) numerous times there is no such statement
made.

[AC1 b], the magistrate here states that the accused stated that while Attard grabbed him from the neck, bit his
finger and punched his face, and whilst a second man “was on his back” a third man joined the fray:- The Defence insists
after reading through my statement numerous times there is no such statement made to that effect. It is also to be noted that
there is also a third time (page 35) [AC2 a] and (page 36) [AF1 e] where the magistrate falsely claims that the accused
stated that he was simultaneously assaulted by three men? The magistrate here in her judgement is crafting falsities to
attempt to synchronise this information into an merged force, proven in the following false exert in the paragraph below.

[AC1 c], the magistrate here states that the accused stated “the three of them were all on me. I was defending
myself and I hit them in the process of doing so”. The Defence insists after reading through my statement numerous times
there is no such statement made.

[AC1 d], the magistrate here in her judgement presents as fact that in Tristan‟s testimony he stated that Mr. Attard
was screaming, shouting and gesticulating? The Defence insists that the accused on (page 729) stated I was walking
towards him and he was walking towards me and he was making a noise and with his hands in the air like he was
screaming.

Page 34 - [AD1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „Victoria‟.
The Defence insists that there is unwarranted cynicism to Victoria especially as her Inquiry & Court Testimony are
identical in factual content.

[AD1 a] is incorrectly presented by the magistrate that following the collision the accused and Ramona got out the
car, she heard a lot of shouting. In fact on questioning both in the Inquiry and identically mirrored in her Testimony
Victoria confirms repeatedly that the accused first went to check the damage on the car and then approached the vehicle
behind as confirmed in inquiry. When she heard screams Ramona had then went down this was also confirmed in inquiry,
she could hear the fighting. As soon as she got the seat belt removed she went out holding the Punto car door there was Ms.
Attard and she told me “everything is over go, get in, go away”. She saw a stone the size of a small bread passing over
from someone with a red t-shirt (Mr. R Briffa).

Additionally it should be noted that Victoria could not walk unaided so how could it be possible for Ms. Attard to on oath
state that Victoria came (to the Sierra) and said something but she did not understand her? Why would she not understand
her Victoria was Maltese. Victoria was diabetic and could not cope on her own and that is why Ramona & the accused had
moved in with her to help her bath etc. after the incident Victoria became complacent and sadly passed away God Bless her
soul.

In conclusion Victoria‟s testimonials are the shortest and devoid of any complexity as she was confined to the Punto which
was ahead of the incident behind. There is absolutely no discrepancies in the facts that she has divulged mainly that Tristan
checked the car then went behind and after hearing shouting Ramona exited the car and when she removed the seatbelt
there was Ms. Attard telling her to go. The Defence requests the magistrate to validate and produce the tempo vergine?

Page 35 - [AE1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „Ramona‟.
The Defence submits Ramona‟ mirroring Inquiry and Testimonials;

Tristan got out of the car and checked the damage and then started to walk behind, Ramona got out after him and they were
fighting Tristan and somebody else (Mr. Attard). This is confirmed the same in the Inquiry.

This is overly repeated the same further in the testimony; (1) when Tristan got out to see the damage I was still seated at
the back that is by the time I got out of the car they were already fighting Tristan and Mr. Attard. (2) As soon as Tristan
was near the driver I got out to calm the situation because both men were punching each other. (3) Tristan got out first I
went out after a while, they were then fighting. Again in the Inquiry it is confirmed Mr. Attard got out the drivers side there
was a lot of shouting and Mr. Shepherd also came out.

There was Ms. Attard she tried to stop Tristan and then there was Mr. Shepherded there was 2 men on one at that time.
This is repeated the same further in the testimony; As woman we tried to stop them when the fight stopped in front of the
Sierra their was Tristan and Ms. Attard and there was distance between Mr. Attard and us there was also Mr. Shepherd on
the ground Tristan was not near him. And again; Mr. Attard was pushing Ramona to continue with Tristan. Tristan
defended himself if you are being attacked its obvious that you fight even 1 to 1 you defend yourself moreover when 2 big
men approach you and then a 3rd who got out. This is confirmed the same in the Inquiry; Ms. Attard came out the car and
was trying to hold Tristan and I was trying to hold 1 of the men.
There was Mr. Attard & Mr. Shepherd on Tristan everyone was fighting there was confusion but when Mr. Shepherd was
on the ground the fight stopped and calmed down. At the time we were trying to stop the fighting Mr. Shepherd was on the
ground Tristan was not near him.

In the Inquiry; another car stopped Mr. Ruben Briffa first went near Mr. Shepherd who was lying on the ground then Mr.
Ruben Briffa & Tristan were challenging each other Mr. Ruben Briffa got a stone from the side of the road and threw it at
Tristan who then gave him a punch. This is mirrored in testimony; Tristan was near my car, Mr Ruben Briffa went near Mr.
Shepherd then he approached us he started shouting like a mad person he went to get a stone threatened to throw it and did.
He was furious his actions were aggressive he was like a mad man. Jumping and hopping. He continued with his
aggressiveness I was really scared and screamed Stop it, Stop it! And Ms. Attard said “as if nothing happened get in your
car, go, sending us away”.

[AE1 a], The Defence cannot conclude what the magistrate is implying in her extraction “after him. They were
fighting Tristan and somebody else?

As Ramona has said (page 10) they have to be together, if not there would not have been a fight. Therefore there is a
collaboration by;

 Ramona - They were fighting Tristan and somebody else (Mr. Attard).
 The accused - has always stated that he fought back with Mr. Attard.
 All four of the Briffas - Mariella, Tania, Ruben and Saviour who stated that the Big man (Mr. Attard was fighting with
the accused in front of the Sierra. As described in the defence submissions (page 16).

 Compared to Mr. Attards inconsistency; (1) No I did not grab him by the neck. (2) I tried to hurl a blow here or there
but I did not manage I could not see. (3) I don‟t think I hit him if I hit him maybe once. (4) I did not touch him. {About
grabbing the accused from his neck and biting his finger you then punched him on his nose is this the truth?} The
Court: what do you say about this? (5) I do not remember anything. (6) It could be the case that I bit him because at
that moment I don‟t know what I was doing.

[AE1 b], The Defence insists that the magistrates portrayal of Ramona‟s testimonials is inaccurate for the
following reasons; Ramona never stated that Tristan was not proficient in martial arts, in fact Ramona declared the
following; The Court: does your boyfriend practise martial arts? “No, during the period I have been knowing him”.
The Court: Madame in 4 years he never went to any lessons or made any moves. Not during the period you have
been knowing him but does he know and did he learn? “No, as far as I know I never saw him going to any lessons but
you cannot know everything about a man”. The Court: Am I correct to say that where you live you have certificates
showing that he used to practise? “What certificates No”! The Court: did you see Tristan kicking? “No”! The Court:
did you see Tristan punching? “Yes punching with the fist”.

In conclusion Ramona radiates truth and honesty! Again there are absolutely no discrepancies in the facts that she has
divulged and the Defence requests the magistrate to validate and produce any claimed effective discrepancies.

Page 35 - [AC2], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „the accused‟ again. The Defence insists that the
assertions made are incorrect;

[AC2 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate asserts that for no apparent reason Attard grabbed him in a
headlock, bit his finger and punched him whilst Shepherded was on his back and a third man was also assaulting him.

This is wrong because when Mr. Attard was strangling the accused from behind in a headlock it was Mr. Attard at my back,
it was after the accused was bitten and punched in the face that the accused now facing he started to fight back with Mr.
Attard and then the accused felt weight and people on his back whom he did not see while being engaged in the fight with
Mr. Attard whose size and strength dominated the altercation. It was after this ended and there was separation that the
accused saw Mr. Shepherd a distance away on the ground? Whilst Ms. Attard in her own admission pushed him back to the
Punto. Then came Mr. Ruben Briffa as a separate incident.

[AC2 b], The Defence insists that the accused was set upon by Mr. Attard and although he was never referred to as
a lunatic it is apparent that he is; not only for his dangerous and reckless driving and the unprovoked attack on the accused
but for his determination to hide the truth, by way of smashing his wife‟s glasses and planting them, by way of the Perjury
he has blatantly and actually committed before the courts, and the fact that he is prepared to have an innocent man reside in
prison for his lies proves he is.

Mr. Shepherd was on my back although he denies that he ever touched the accused? The accused never faced this
individual as he was always engaged in fighting with Mr. Attard only, and this has been collaborated. Mr. Briffa is an
absolute lunatic he said and tried to kill the accused by smashing a rock into the head of the accused.

[AC2 c], The magistrate asserts that Mr. Shepherd collapsed for no reason other than presumably an ill timed
epileptic fit. This is horrendous for a number of reasons. It is true that every witness of the complainants has overly
repeated that Mr. Shepherd is docile in so much as he cannot do many things by himself and if he gets worried he
has a epileptic seizure. The Defence in their submissions (page16) have never insisted that Mr. Shepherd had an
epileptic fit although the probability is extremely high. It is a well known fact also that people suffering with
epilepsy tend to faint when being emotionally charged, and such a fight suggests that Mr. Shepherd was emotionally
charged. It is also unavoidable to note (page 17) that it is dangerous to manhandle unconscious persons who are
laying on the ground. The people who have manhandled Mr. Shepherd are not trained first aid professionals, and it
is common that manhandling an unconscious person without the necessary expertise could result in damage being
inflicted upon the person, the most common being rib fracture.

Page 36 - [AE2], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „Ramona‟ again.
The Defence that the magistrates portrayal in her judgement is inexcusably incorrect and factually inaccurate for the
following noticeable reasons;

[AE2 a], the magistrate presents that in the Inquiry Ramona initially stated that the accused was fighting with two
men? This is utterly and factually incorrect and again a misrepresentation of evidence. Ramona in fact (page 20) stated
Mr. Attard got out the drivers side there was a lot of shouting and Mr. Shepherd also came out. Ramona got out of the car
to calm down the situation because both men were punching each other. Ms. Attard came out the car and was trying to hold
Tristan and I was trying to hold 1 of the men.

The fact that the magistrate has stated as she has and quoted this information and assessment from the Inquiry demonstrates
further administrative inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

To clarify it is actually stated as such: (Page 6) There was Ms. Attard she tried to stop Tristan and then there was Mr.
Shepherded there was 2 men on one at that time. (Page 29) Tristan defended himself if you are being attacked its obvious
that you fight even 1 to 1 you defend yourself moreover when 2 big men approach you and then a 3 rd who got out.

[AE2 b], the magistrate presents here that the Inquiry version of Ramona differs from her court testimony?

1. Firstly as clearly demonstrated above in [AE2] & [AE2 a], the magistrates assessment and portrayal is factually
incorrect.
2. Therefore the magistrate assertion of a difference of versions here in [AE2 b] is actually also incorrect. Ramona has
overly repeated exactly the same in the Testimony; (1) when Tristan got out to see the damage I was still seated at the
back that is by the time I got out of the car they were already fighting Tristan and somebody else (Mr. Attard). (2)
As soon as Tristan was near the driver I got out to calm the situation because both men were punching each other.
(3) Tristan got out first I went out after a while, they were then fighting.

[AE2 c], the magistrate here in her judgement presents that Ramona is echoing the accused version of events as
given by him in the Inquiry?

1. If this was true, this echo naturally would reverberate the same repetitiously, as the magistrate implies. However this
echo statement then contradicts her very own assertion made where she states (page 35) [AC2] that the accused Inquiry
version and the version before the Court differs and specifically that (page 36) [AE2] the Court finds that both his
versions differ utterly from that given by Ramona Rodenas?

2. The Court fails in her echo statement to recognise that at 2 o‟clock in the morning the accused went to the Sliema
Police Station there with Ramona and her father France in the presence of the Police they waited to 3 o‟clock for the
Police to arrive from Naxxar whereupon they proceeded to arrest the accused on the premise that Mr. Shepherd was
dying, this is now known to be medically and legally incorrect. The Court should be aware as it was testified by
Inspector Simon Galea that the accused was locked up and left in Police HQ until the following day where upon he
was brought to Naxxar Police Station and was held separated from contact from Ramona and the rest of the family all
of whom as in accordance with prosecution practise which must be known interrogated each person separately.
Whereupon the accused was taken and held back at Police HQ. The following day in court which must also be known
Inspector Simon Galea requested that Ramona not have contact with the accused which remained in place while the
accused was incarcerated at CCF until Chief Justice overturned such restriction. A time which was after all statements
in the initial Inquiry were taken. Therefore Ramona could not be echoing the accused versions in the manner the
magistrate implies but only by actual events and honesty.

[AE2 d], the magistrate here in her judgement presents that later in Ramona‟s testimony she confirms that Mr.
Shepherd was already lying down on the ground? The Defence insist that the magistrates portrayal is factually incorrect.
Nowhere has Ramona ever stated that Mr. Shepherd was already on the ground? In fact Ramona states; as woman we tried
to stop them when the fight stopped in front of the Sierra their was Tristan and Ms. Attard and there was distance between
Mr. Attard and us there was also Mr. Shepherd on the ground Tristan was not near him. There was Mr. Attard & Mr.
Shepherd on Tristan everyone was fighting there was confusion but when Mr. Shepherd was on the ground the fight
stopped and calmed down.

Page 36 - [AF1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „devoid of credibility and no semblance of the
truth‟. The Defence insists that the magistrates belief is wholly incorrect, for all the reasons explained throughout this
contention and following;

[AF1 a], the magistrate here in her judgement asserts that „apart from the fact that they are uncorroborated by
independent witnesses‟.

The Defence wholly disputes this and proves that it is the accused and Ramona whose precise and mirrored un conflicting
testimonials collaborate each other and are supported by the Briffas. It is Mr. Attards and his party who proffer self
contradictions and cross party contradictions that do not correlate any harmony or resonate any consistency, they proffer
unreasonable and physically impossibilities, which are contradictory to police evidence and medical assessments, further it
is their assertions that are not collaborated by the Briffas as detailed throughout this contention. The magistrate has chosen
to ignore the principle fact that while Mr. Attard has supposedly feigned unconsciousness for 2 seconds in a series of 3 very
different instances via 6 different actions and then his escape etc. which for his 2 seconds before is the only time the
accused is supposed to have inflicted by multiple performances perpetrations upon Mr. Shepherd? The court has ample
testimonial evidence of each person the accused & Ramona =2. Mr. & Ms. Attard and Mr. & Ms. Shepherd =4. The Briffas
=4. That‟s 10 people that have all stated that the accused and Mr. Attard were fighting in front of the Sierra. 6 of whom
have all witnessed and stated that before this fight ended Mr. Shepherd was on the ground some distance away, when the
fight actually stopped the accused went to and was at his car of which even 2 more (Ms. Shepherd & Ms. Attard) confirm.
Thereby making it impossible for the accused in 2 seconds to have done anything to Mr. Shepherd especially as the Briffas
have not witnessed this 2 seconds of Mr. Attards feigned unconsciousness while they were travelling to and actually
present on site witnessing Mr. Attard actively fighting with the accused in front of the Sierra car while Mr. Shepherd lay
along the side of this vehicle!

[AF1 b], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „simply passers by‟. And the magistrate below
makes remarks to the precise Saviour Briffa. The Defence exhibits that Mr. Saviour Briffa claims his son does not know
these people but his son Mr. Ruben Briffa confirms differently that he still managed to recognise Mr. Attard in his words
while his eyes were full of blood, his face full of blood, holding his face.

[AF1 c], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „oncoming traffic‟. A small possible correction
oncoming traffic tends to imply from the opposite direction? Which would not be true.

[AF1 d], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „compelling and precise testimony‟. The
Defence exhibits that Mr. Saviour Briffa has committed Perjury before the Courts;

1. Mr. Saviour Briffa has stated that the accused came while his son Ruben Briffa was picking up Mr. Shepherd from the
ground. It should also be noted to the contrary that he himself has let it slip that they were far from the white Sierra car,
meaning they were at the Punto and at the Punto was obviously not Mr. Shepherd. Additionally Ms. Attard has
confirmed ushering the accused back to the Punto. Mr. Attard has also confirmed that Mr. Ruben Briffa went straight
to the accused. Further Tania & Mariella have confirmed that they were two cars behind which also confirms that Mr.
Ruben Briffa was at the Punto.

2. That his son leaned Mr. Shepherd against the Siera. It should be noted it is impossible for an unconscious man to stand
leaning against something. This also contradicts his admission that he was far from the white Sierra. More importantly
his own son Mr. Ruben Briffa who stated differently but still falsely that he gave Mr. Shepherd to Ms. Attard & Ms.
Shepherd. This is denied by Ms. Attard who asserts that she was concentrating on Mr. Shepherd who is still on the
ground and has not seen Mr. Ruben Briffa do anything. Even Ms. Shepherd confirms that Mr. Ruben Briffa did not
immediately lift her husband but only after when he had blood on his mouth from the incident of him throwing a rock
at the accused who punched him back in the process. Mr. Attard also confirmed that the accused was not near the
Sierra when Mr. Ruben Briffa and themselves assisted Mr. Shepherd into the Sierra vehicle.

3. Mr. Saviour Briffa has claimed that the accused put his son in a headlock and then punched him. This is not
collaborated by the divulgence of the truth by the accused, by Ramona, By Mr. Attard and by Tania & Mariella Briffa
all whom have stated a single punch.

4. Mr. Saviour Briffa claimed that his son Mr. Ruben Briffa only threw at the accused a piece of soil that disintegrates?
When his own son Mr. Ruben Briffa confessed it was a rock.

5. Mr. Saviour Briffa denied that his son in gesture bit his hand (when someone loses or is about to loose their temper)
then later admitted it claiming that his son Mr. Ruben Briffa was biting his hand after his teeth were knocked off with
blood running down. This is not reasonable to believe as Mr. Ruben Briffa expressed that he could not endure. The
significance of this is that Mr. Ruben Briffa screaming and shouting approached the Punto to where the accused was,
(Mr. Shepherd is still on the ground at the Sierra) the accused confirms that here he told Mr. Ruben Briffa to fuck off,
 then Mr. Ruben Briffa exploded into a rage biting his hand in gesture and left to the side of the road and returned with
a rock and threatened and attempted to strike the accused in the head, the accused confirms he went warm and
instinctively ducked and in the same instance launched a punch at Mr. Ruben Briffa.

6. Mr. Saviour Briffa claimed he and his son Mr. Ruben Briffa were chased by the accused? This supposedly happened
after the accused had first punched him? And only then his son got some soil to throw it at the accused? The question
of reasonability and probability is; how could it be at all possible for Mr. Ruben Briffa being all confused thus having
the time to go to the pavement to look for a stone on his hands and knees? To then furiously bite his fist with blood
running down his mouth, to throw the rock? To then take his spectacles from Mr. Attard and put them on. To get the
number plate registration of the Punto. To then assist with the lifting of Mr. Shepherd from the ground into the Sierra.
All in the distance and time of 25ft if the capable Defendant was chasing after them from the Punto? Despite the fact
that both Saviour And Ruben have on oath before the courts enforced the belief that all this transpired at the Sierra.
Mariela Briffa claims it was only when she shouted at the accused that he returned back? Yet Saviour Briffa on the
contrary asserts that the accused only turned back on seeing his sons defensive soil throwing display? Which Mariela
&Tania Briffa have not witnessed as they have their own different supposed version.

[AF1 e], the magistrate here in her judgement presents as fact that in Tristan‟s testimony he stated that he was
simultaneously assaulted by three men? The Defence insists that the magistrates portrayal is inaccurate for the following
reasons; not on any occasion through ought a lengthy inquisition has the accused ever inferred or stated such a claim. In
fact the accused has been abundantly clear and consistent that he was fighting in front of the Sierra with Mr. Attard after
being strangled, he knows there was present Ms. Attard and Ramona and can only assume it was Mr. Shepherd on his back
behind him, that he never saw this mans face until court 26 September 2003, that when the fight with Mr. Attard stopped
with the intervention of Ms. Attard & Ramona there was Mr. Shepherded some distance away laying along side the rear of
the Sierra car. This is completely consistent with Ramona‟s testimonials. That then Ms. Attard was pushing the accused
back to his Punto. This is again consistent with Ramona and confirmed also through Ms. Attard. That then the accused got
back out his car and then Mr. Ruben Briffa came to him screaming and shouting and that he had a completely separate
incident with Mr. Briffa.

In conclusion the Defence fails to see how the magistrate continues to manufacture versions unrelated to actuality of
the evidence tendered by witnesses. From this tainted and factually incorrect misrepresentation an erroneous
guilty judgement has been shockingly passed suppressing the innocence of the accused while veiling the crimes of
Perjury committed by the deceitful complainants while atrociously dishonouring the integrity of a judicial system.

Page 36 - [AE3], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „Ramona‟s Stop it, Stop it‟. The Defence insists
that the magistrates belief is wholly incorrect, for all the reasons explained throughout this contention and following;

[AE3 a], although it is quite possible to comprehend that Ramona immediately did recognise that the complainants
were not English speaking? She was not asked this in either the Inquiry or in the Court testimony to perhaps discover this
for fact of what at least Ramona might have believed. One can also ponder who immediately knows what languages
another person may have in their repertoire in a multi cultural society? Besides does not Malta advocate that English is their
second national language. Thereby for the magistrate to state it as matter of fact is wrong. Especially considering Ramona‟s
mother and aunties are English, she lived in Sliema where all Maltese national generally speak English, she worked most
her life in tourist enterprises where English is obviously and statistically mostly spoken, her boyfriend whom she had been
living with for the last 4 years is English, and most street signs including STOP signs in Malta are in English.

[AE3 b], firstly Ramona knows when and to whom and why she stated her scream of Stop it, Stop it. If any notice
at all was engaged from Ramona‟s consistent and un contradictory testimonials then it is clear that she was scared when
Mr. Ruben tried to kill the accused with a rock and she screamed what she did.
However importantly this and the people who have heard Ramona‟s terrified screams prove once again unequivocally the
innocence of the accused;

Mr. Attard on oath before the Courts has stated that while supposedly he was (the Defence would like to emphasise
the word: on) his bonnet before he took out his handkerchief to wipe the blood from his eye before his supposed
escape around his car where he came upon Mr. Shepherd on the ground seeing him blurred he does not know while
the accused was supposedly chasing him if the accused (the Defence would like to emphasise the word:
simultaneously) might have gone for Mr. Shepherd?

1. The Defence would like to point out that this would mean having seen Mr. Shepherd on the ground blurred that Mr.
Attard just stepped over or around his friend because he himself stated that he came around to the front of his car and
supposedly got hit there twice.

2. The Defence would like to point out that Ms. Attard has confirmed that the moment Mr. Attard was supposed to have
been slammed on his bonnet (despite Mr. Attard proffering 3 different versions: Thrown, Fell and Punched) for the
reason for him being on his bonnet, nevertheless according to Mr. Attards own sworn testimony it is this precise
moment he supposedly lost consciousness for 2 seconds. And Ms. Attard who has unnaturally not noticed this has
confirmed that she pushed the accused back to his Punto at this moment.

3. Most importantly the Briffas who were travelling from a distance behind drove up behind the Sierra and saw a Big
man (Mr. Attard) and the accused fighting in front of the Sierra while alongside the Sierra was Mr. Shepherd stretched
out face up on his back. Taking all this in remember they had children in the car Saviour Briffa and his son it is
reasonable to assume had the intentions of picking Mr. Shepherd up from the ground to remove him from the danger of
cars passing. It cannot be denied that Mr. Ruben Briffa knows Mr. Attard. It cannot be denied either as extensively
proved by collaboration and analysis in all of (Page 36) - [AF1 a, b, c, d, d1-6, e, etc.], that they indeed did not
immediately pick up Mr. Shepherd but instead went to assault the accused who had got into his Punto. In essence they
have Perjured themselves before the courts in trying to make themselves look like heroes when in fact the evidence
proves them to be the assailants who have perverted the course of justice by swaying the perception of the Police and
the Courts which resulted in the further persecution of the innocent accused.

4. Proving the innocence of the accused Mr. Saviour Briffa has also stated that he heard Ramona scream Stop it,
Stop it! Which means he and his son Mr. Ruben Briffa were present while Mr. Shepherd was already on the
ground, and as Mr. Attard has claimed to have heard this from on top of his bonnet and the magistrates belief
in him and that the accused a 69 kilo man beating Mr. Attard a 100 kilo man on his bonnet and from here the
accused thereafter went to assault Mr. Shepherd are now proven by multiple implications to be incorrect and
false. To state but just one the most obvious Mr. Attard was not on his bonnet and not unconscious or escaping
but fighting with the accused.

Page 37 - [AC3], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „indeed the court fails to see how the accused‟.
The Defence insists that the magistrates belief is wholly incorrect, for all the reasons explained throughout this contention
and following;

[AC3 a] The magistrate again falsely asserts for the 4th time on this fact alone that the accused was set upon
by three men? This is incorrect and in Ramona’s and the accused testimonial it is explained precisely and in detail
step by step that first there was fighting between Mr. Attard and the accused then Mr. Shepherd joined in from
behind and Ms. Attard and Ramona tried to separate this fighting. During of which the Briffas have travelled to and
arrived on site where they witness Mr. Shepherd laying alongside the Sierra while Mr. Attard and the accused are
still fighting in front of the Sierra, they also declared that there was Ms. Attard and Ramona screaming. This fight
stopped and calmed down and the accused while being ushered to his vehicle fist noticed Mr. Shepherd laying on the
floor as did Ramona. The accused got into his Punto and then came Mr. Ruben Briffa over to him screaming, the
accused swore at him and Mr. Ruben Briffa exploded bit his fist in temper gesture and went to the side of the road
and returned with a rock threatening to kill the accused, he launched this rock at his head and the accused
simultaneously struck back to defend himself. Ms. Attard was telling Victoria and Ramona to go etc. and they with
the accused left the scene shocked and bemused.

Mr. Briffa is an absolute lunatic he said and tried to kill the accused by smashing a rock into the head of the accused. The
court has calculatingly neglected to notice that there was no physical entanglement between Mr. Ruben Briffa who through
a rock only and who simultaneously received a punch back from the accused in an attempt to save his life and this resulted
to the abrasions etc. on the right hand knuckles of the accused.

[AC3 b], the magistrate has from her judgement omitted and it would appear deliberately the full medical
assessment of the injuries sustained by the accused. Which is in fact: 2 linear bruising bruises over (4cm) horizontally over
right lower abdomen, 3 linear bruises over left nape of neck, small scratch over right side of nose bridge, abrasions over
right knuckles, small LWC over tip of left little finger.

The testimony of Dr Brian Flores Martin on the 6th of April 2005 confirm the breach of a fair trial and the breach of Article
356 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta. It also confirms that the accused did not know what the medical assessment was yet
his description of events correlate to exactly how he was first strangled by Mr. Attard in trying to fee himself he pushed his
hand up and backwards into the face of Mr. Attard where Mr. Attard proceed to bite the accused who swivelled around to
face Mr. Attard who then punched him in the face where the accused has the cut on his nose bridge and from here the
accused engaged into fighting back with Mr. Attard. It is evidentially exposed that the magistrate is deliberately hiding the
physical medical evidence which delivers factors of the compelling probability of the accused being strangled.

In conclusion the court fashionably has not by analysis considered that although there was an incident with Mr.
Ruben Briffa the exchange was disconnected by him. The accused never faced or fought with Mr. Shepherd and as
the courts will recall that Mr. Shepherd presents himself as feeble he is an epileptic who even had to have the court
room cleared from public so he would not get an epileptic seizure from just being asked some questions, it has been
overly repeated by the Attards & Shepherds that if he gets worried he has a seizure, the court itself has declared
him as elderly therefore despite him being on the back of the accused and firing of punches, he is not going to
realistically have any damaging or detrimental effect. Therefore realistically it was only Mr. Attard that engaged
physically in a contact fight with the accused.

[AC3 c], the magistrate has from her judgement that the accused and Ramona lacks credibility and do not bear up.
The Defence insists that the evidence illuminates the contrary and in fact it is Ramona‟s, Victoria‟s and the accused whose
testimonials are precise and consistent. That medical evidence substantiates the manner of which and how the fight with
Mr. Attard was initiated. And on matters of vital importance it is indeed collaborated by independent witnesses whom
prove the impossibility of the allegations against the accused. This is confirmed and substantiated throughout this
contention and in parts through the magistrates own findings in her judgement specifically; (page 32) [AB1, a, b] of Mr.
Attards loss of consciousness and the failing of the Briffas etc having noticed such, contested in explanation through AB1
here in this document. Also in (page 36) [AE3 a, b] of Ramona screaming Stop it, Stop it! contested in explanation through
AE3 here in this document. Which indisputably exhibit‟s the improbability of such and the flaws in the strength of belief in
Mr. Attard and her condemning guilty judgement.

[AC3 d], the magistrate has from her judgement that with a few exceptions of mere detail Mr. Attard & Mr.
Shepherd are credible and dependable. The Defence insists that the evidence illuminates the complete contrary which is
collaborated by their very own excessive contradictions and that of independent witnesses of vital importance;

Most examples have been thoroughly explained throughout the Defence submissions and this contention document
however following are some more pertinent examples that begin and end with Mr. Attards & Mr. Shepherds involvement
together;

 Conditions: Mr. Attard - “There was a queue & a lot of traffic.” Mr. Shepherd - “There was no traffic?”
 Braking: Mr. Attard - “Came to a screeching standstill stop!” Mr. Shepherd - “No braking or screeching of tyres?”
 Overtaking: Mr. Attard - “the Punto was driving straight in front of him. He just pressed the accelerator and remained
straight without using his indicator.” Mr. Shepherd - “Mr. Attard switched on his indicator and pulled on the right hand
of the steering wheel going up?”
 Checking vehicle damage: Mr. Attard - “I did not check my car, no.” Mr. Shepherd - “Mr. Attard did check his car?”
Mr. Shepherd “on exiting the Sierra I checked the car for 5 or 6 minutes then walked 6 metres to hear what was being
said?” Mr. Attard - my wife and Mr. Shepherd had not come out of the Sierra because he suffers with epilepsy and
would get a fit.
 Intervention: Mr. Attard - although he has 3 versions states “ Mr. Shepherd first held me and then after the accused to
separate the fight.” Mr. Shepherd - “I did not go to separate them, no, no, no, no?”

In conclusion it is highly questionable on how the magistrate has drawn her conclusion of Mr. Attard & Mr. Shepherds
credible and dependable allegations?

A further example following is submitted by the Defence to demonstrate „probability‟; in the accused (page 729) testimony
he states it was hard to understand what he was saying because of the speed and noise of the cars passing on that busy road
so you cant make out clearly what people are saying. This of course is obvious to anyone who stands on or near a busy
road, a road incidentally where the fight etc. occurred is 60 km per hour a very busy road. Victoria in a closed car could
hear the screaming of a fight etc. The Briffa‟s have heard woman screaming. Ramona declared that she screamed Stop it,
Stop it! Yet contrarily and beyond the obvious of reasonability & probability Ms. Attard & Mr. Shepherd presented on oath
that they calmly spoke words like “leave him” or “what happened”. As explained in the Defence submissions (page 15) that
the fight was a highly charged encounter in which it is not credible that they spoke in a colloquial fashion and this is
without considering the deafening noise of the traffic.

Page 37 - [AG1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „plea of self defence‟. The Defence insist that in
the magistrates judgement (page 31) and therein the explanation in this contention of [AA7 etc] of this contention proves
that the complainants are leaving crucial information out. It is on the basis of the Articles of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta
of probability etc; Then how? If the Defendant has a fist to fight did he get bitten? He had to have been bitten before
he made a fist! It is apparent that the magistrate has not grasped the fact that if the accusers hands were in a fist
and was immediately punching from which Mr. Attard became allegedly unconscious, there is no possible way that
the bite injury to the underside of his finger could occur. Therefore Mr. Attards account of not grabbing the Defendant
around the neck is implausible for the specific following reasons his claim is contested by medical proof of bruising around
the neck of the Defendant and is also consistent with how the Defendant was bitten and then punched in the face. It is also
to be noted that in breach of Articles 356 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta this medical certification validating the
strangulation, the bite and a punch in the face amongst other injuries suffered by the accused, was omitted by the
prosecution contrary to the definition specified in the Articles. This was never made available to the Defence until 2009.
Importantly to also note is that the version honestly professed by the accused who could not have known what was written
by the doctor in his medical assessment matches explicitly and precisely!

The Defence submits to the Honourable Court that the Defendant on being taken from behind unawares in fear and
frightened, of being strangled and without breath, he only reacted in self defence to escape from being attacked by Mr.
Attards strangle hold around the Defendants neck of which there is medically certified proof of, in the process of escaping
this, the Accuser Mr. Attard then bit the Defendant again of which there is medically certified proof of and punched him
square in the face. The injury there after of Mr. Attards bruise and 1 centimetre approx cut on his eyebrow resulted from
Mr. Attard initial attack and therefore comes under the distinct provisions of the Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code Laws of
Malta applicable legal definitions; 223, 224, 227, 230, 231, 232. 233.

The accused here himself presents so there can be no room for speculation that Ramona does not exactly specify that the
accused was strangled this could be that to her a fight is a fight? It is not established by the prosecution in her testimonials.
Ramona was in the closed Punto at the back seat during her removing of her seatbelt, releasing and putting forward the
drivers seat and opening the door for her exit it is more than probable that the accused freed himself from the strangling
around his neck being perpetrated by Mr. Attard. The Defence insists that if taken unawares and without breath with some
one a stranger in the dark around your neck strangling you from behind, with an immediate adrenaline boost and automatic
instinct for survival it is more than reasonable to consider that the effort to escape would be instantaneous because if you do
not succeed in this instance it could be lights out!

Page 38 - [AG2], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „some physical withdrawal‟. The Defence insist
that in the magistrate is devoid of the essence of reality;

[AG2 a], The accused at the time was 6 ft tall and 69 kilos in weight. Mr. Attard is from the records 5ft 11 inches
tall and at least if not more than 100 kilos in weight. This in human terms is significant the difference between light and
heavy weight. He has been described as a Big man. A man that nearly crashes into you and then later does. A man who in
the dark pounces and strangles, who then bites a man who is struggling to breath, a man who while biting the finger
punches a lightweight in the face. It is evident from his admission that he was hit just 3 times and from his very own
injuries; a bruise and a 1 cm cut that more than physical withdrawal was exercised by the accused.

With regards to Mr. Shepherded the accused with his dying breath will continue to protest his innocence that he never faced
Mr. Shepherd and only saw him on the ground, that he neither threw, punched or kicked him. To importantly note medical
verification does not support Mr. Shepherds claim and manner of multiple attacks.

With regards to Mr. Ruben Briffa who came unprovoked with a rock threatening to kill and tried to kill who simultaneously
received only one punch back in the process seems more than a fair exchange and a testament to the demonstration of
withdrawal exercised by the accused.

[AG2 b], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „as a black belt practitioner of martial arts‟. The
Defence insist that in the magistrate wholly incorrect and this reflects a flawed assessment and judgement. The accused is
NOT a black belt practitioner of martial arts. The accused at the age of 12 or 14 attained a black belt and then regrettably
ended his sport and achievement.

[AG2 c], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „elderly men smaller in stature‟. The Defence
insist that this again is incorrect; at the time Mr. Attard was 56 years, 1 inch smaller than the accused and at least 30 kilos
heavier. Mr. Shepherd was never engaged. Mr. Ruben Briffa was 30 years and larger than Mr. Attard.

[AG2 d], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to „uncontrolled‟. The Defence insist that this has
been dispelled as explained throughout.

Page 38 - [AG2], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the accused tried to conceal his black belt. The
Defence insist that in the magistrate is exaggerating by manipulation of facts that clearly demonstrate that her assertions are
unfounded and dishonest;

1. The Defence insists that the magistrates portrayal of Ramona‟s testimonials is inaccurate for the following reasons;
Ramona never stated that Tristan was not proficient in martial arts, in fact Ramona declared the following; The Court:
does your boyfriend practise martial arts? “No, during the period I have been knowing him”. The Court: Madame in
4 years he never went to any lessons or made any moves. Not during the period you have been knowing him but does
 he know and did he learn? “No, as far as I know I never saw him going to any lessons but you cannot know
everything about a man”. The Court: Am I correct to say that where you live you have certificates showing that he
used to practise? “What certificates No”! The Court: did you see Tristan kicking? “No”! The Court: did you see
Tristan punching? “Yes punching with the fist”.

2. The Defence insists that the magistrates portrayal of Tristan‟s testimonials is inaccurate for the following reasons; The
Court: since you have been in Malta you didn‟t practice any sport? “Nothing for years.” The Court: before you came
to Malta did you practice any sport? “Nothing for years, only when I was a kid a teenager.” The Court: do you have
any hobbies? “Nothing at all, I was trying to get a business of the ground.” The Court: so you don‟t practise any
martial arts? “No I don’t practice any martial arts.” The Court: have you participated in martial arts? “Yes I have
participated.” The Court: how many years? “I finished when I was 12 or 14.” The Court: and what? “Black belt.”
The Court: am I correct to state that black belt is a very high level in martial arts? “You know what black belt is.”
The Court: I don‟t practice martial arts. “I haven’t practised martial arts either since I was a teenager.” The
Court: but you achieved a level of black belt am I correct to say that black belt is a very high level of martial arts?
“Yes.”

In conclusion Ramona and the accused radiates truth and honesty! All questions posed by the prosecution were in both
instances answered openly and honestly. There is not one discrepancy or lie. The Defence fails from the transcripts listed
above to discover where Ramona or the accused denied or were cornered into admittance? The Defence requests the
magistrate to validate and produce any claimed effective denials she falsely claims was repeatedly exercised by Ramona
and the accused?

Page 41 - [AH1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the injuries sustained by Mr. Attard. The
Defence for clarity asks and points out;

1. The bruising by this doctor specified it to be on the forehead of Mr. Attard and not his eye?
2. The doctor specified that it was a 1 cm approximately laceration. And not that it was definitely a 1cm laceration.
3. The doctor affirmed the injuries were of a Slight nature safe complications. And not save.

[AH1 a], The defence insists that it is pertinent to note the following;

1. The prosecution failed to have taken photographs of the accused for comparison in fact the prosecution withheld in
breach of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta Articles 356 the accused medically assessed injuries and certificate, which
would have proffered and provided evidence that the accused was in all probability strangled. This can be confirmed in
the unfair trail process, from Dr Brian Flores Martin who was brought to testify by the prosecution very late on the 6 th
April 2006, when the indictment and court proceedings started on the 10 th May 2003 approx.

2. The court claims to be of the opinion that the injuries sustained by Mr. Attard caused a disfigurement of his face, albeit
one that lasted for a number of days. This statement of the magistrate demonstrates her prejudiced against the accused
beyond the remit inscribed in the statures of Maltese Law. If it only lasted a few days then he is not disfigured.

With that said, in the English language by definition of interpretation of clauses of Maltese Law the word DEFORMITY
is 1. A deformed condition. 2. Pathol. A distortion of an organ or part. 3. A deformed person or thing. 4. A defect, esp. of
the mind or morals. The root: DEFORM is 1. To make or become misshapen or distorted. 2. To mar the beauty of;
disfigure.

DISFIGUREMENT is 1. To spoil the appearance or shape of; deface. 2. To mar the effect or quality of. Thus definitely the
definitions in Law and of the English language do not compare in description or meaning to a 1 cm approx cut that would
have healed closed through the 1 suture that was removed on the 16 th May 2003.
If the Prosecution the Court and the Attorney General contrary to medical certification can recognise and implement by
definition of the Maltese Criminal Code by application elevate with regards to Mr. Attard a charge of 221 to 216, then by
the same exact definition of the Maltese Criminal Code why racially against the Defendant has the Prosecution the Court
and the Attorney General not recognised or implemented by application the same elevation of charge for the injuries
sustained by the Defendant by the Accuser Mr. Attard?

Here exists the prejudice; in the words of Superintendent Simon Galea “I wish to inform my able colleague that
proceedings will also be instituted against Mr. R Briffa for throwing the stones and for using force against the Defendant,
and proceedings will also be instituted against Mr. Attard for causing a slight bodily harm as certified by the doctor”? The
Courts interjection of Ramona Rodenas‟s testimony regarding the Defendants injuries; the Court: “minor”?

Yet the bite injury to the accused finger is permanently scared and comes under the same definition of Maltese Law yet the
authorities have not incarcerated Mr. Attard for 2 years?

Page 42 - [AI1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the injuries sustained by Mr. Shepherd The
Defence for clarity asks and points out;

[AI1 a], The defence insists that it is pertinent to note the following regarding „semi conscious state‟ The
magistrate has stated that Dr Nicole Camilleri verified that when Mr. Shepherd was admitted to hospital he was in a semi
conscious state. This is disputed by;

1. by the Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke‟s Hospital - Professor Godfrey
Laferla who repeatedly states; from going through the history and casualty notes which are normally taken from the
patient when he actually came in, he was certainly not unconscious or what might have been described as the ectal
phase after a fit, but he was certainly fully conscious when he was admitted, and the history actually says as taken
from the patient that he was actually involved in a fight” etc. “when he was admitted he had what is called the
Glasgow coma scale which is normally used to asses the orientation to time, place and person in response to
commands and various other things, 15 is the maximum for a normal person and he was 15 at the time of admission,
so he was 100% there at the time he was seen”.

Importantly note Dr Nicole Camilleri testified that Mr. Shepherd gave her no indication to what had happened, the Court
{did he give you any indication}? “No”. Which is again in direct contradiction with her superiors as the Professor above in
paragraph has shown.

2. And by Mr. Shepherd who has stated “I think they picked me up from the ground”. If so then Mr. Shepherd contradicts
himself by claiming, the Courts {and when you regained consciousness, what do you remember and where were you}?
“In Hospital. I said what am I doing here”. (the 3 rd contradiction). “I remained confused for around three days, I did
not even know I was in Hospital”.

[AI1 b], The defence insists that it is pertinent to note the following regarding „contusion on the brain‟ The
magistrate has stated that Dr Nicole Camilleri stated that a CT scan showed a contusion of the brain which was rendered
more serious owing to the medication which “would have led to bleeding”. This is disputed by;

The doctor has stated that results of the CT scan showed he had a contusion of the brain, however nowhere in her testimony
does she state this was rendered more serious due to his medication that would have led to bleeding? Further the doctor
states that they had to wait get the results of the CT scan of which in the one to two hours they did nothing for the patient
other than just IV fluids.
Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke‟s Hospital - Professor Godfrey Laferla
confirms Mr. Shephered was first dripped with IV fluids and after investigations were performed. He states the contusion
on Mr. Shepherds head was really of no great significance.

[AI1 c], The defence insists that it is pertinent to note the following regarding „danger of loosing his life for one to
two hours‟ The magistrate has stated that Dr Nicole Camilleri stated that Mr. Shepherd was in danger of loosing his life for
one to two hours . This is disputed by;

Dr Nicole Camilleri was asked {were any of the vital organs or his heartbeat irregular}? “We did not know at the
time”. {But shortly after Mr. Shepherd entered into Casualty, then he was not considered in danger of loosing his
life, right}? “Then about an hour or two hours later he was fully conscious”. The Court {So it was only in that short
period of time}? “Yes”. “He himself came conscious, we maintained him”. The Court {How did you treat him? In
those two hours, the Casualty treatment? What in fact did you do}? “Iv fluids”. {So medicines were given}? “No”.
{Some intervention? Dramatic Casualty}? “No”. {He was just given a drip and he came conscious after an hour or
two} “Yes”.

Dr Nicole Camilleri unprofessionally assessed without medical prognosis Mr. Shepherd to be in danger of death recklessly
announcing this to PC 1131 without providing any medicines or intervention to save the life of her patient
unbelievably leaving Mr. Shepherd to his own devices in the doctors own words “he was just given a drip and he came
conscious after an hour or two” when Dr Nicole Camilleri withdraws her initial superficial assessment yet this doctor fails
to inform the Police of such a major alteration?

The Defendant was arrested and incarcerated with the Police forced belief that a man was dying, despite factually this is
medically untrue and legally incorrect, this left the Defendant as it would anyone carrying such a unnecessary heavy
burden, pure psychological torment with a diminished quality of life.

Page 42 - [AJ1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to Dr Marilyn Casha. The Defence for clarity asks
and points out;

Superintendent Simon Galea and Court appointed Expert Dr Zammit Lewis has submitted to the Honourable Courts that
the following day the 11th May 2003 they asked Dr Marilyn Casha who provided in writing that Mr Shepherd was fully
competent and able to be interviewed to give his evidence and thus following Superintendent Simon Galea stated by way of
testimony, “Mr. Shepherd tendered his evidence, in my opinion, he went exactly to the point, he started to explain exactly
exactly what had happened”.

On the Prosecutions certainty of Mr. Shepherds recall precision of the mothers day night incident, it is suffice to conclude
the sum total of the prosecutions accusations levied at the Defendant are extracted from the exaggerated imagination of Mr.
Shepherd who in Court astonishingly expressed “I don’t know, I don’t know, that is why I am astonished here about these
policemen”? Meaning Superintendent Simon Galea and Court appointed Expert Dr Zammit Lewis. In fact the Prosecution
was so stunned by these latest revelations of their Star witness that they called to Court Dr Marilyn Casha where she was
again asked on Oath if Mr. Shepherd was in a position to give testimony, in his condition after the alleged incident with the
Defendant, the doctor confirmed “yes, he was competent to give evidence”. Court appointed Expert Dr Zammit Lewis who
was waiting for another case and the Court even indicated Dr Zammit Lewis and Mr. Shepherd couldn‟t even remember
that Dr Zammit Lewis or anybody else came? The Defence submits that clearly Mr. Shepherds memory cannot for any
accuracy be relied upon for his false claims are medically disputed and his false assertions are untrue by being in actuality
physically impossible to execute and also in contradiction to other witnesses.

Page 42 - [AK1], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to Chairman of the Department of Surgery and
Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke‟s Hospital - Professor Godfrey Laferla . The Defence for clarity asks and points out;
The Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke‟s Hospital - Professor Godfrey Laferla on
Oath stated “unless there is something that was extremely serious or something that required a major procedure, we are
not usually called in and we would therefore see the patient the following day after admission”. Mr. Shepherd was dripped
which is normal practice, then an x ray of the chest which showed a possible fracture of the atrim on the left side. An ACT
scan which showed a small contusion on the * left side of his head / back part of his head „occipital‟ area (* check) but it
was really of no great significance etc. A scan of the abdomen showed a low density lesion, that means a possible
accumulation of blood in the region of the spleen. And on further discussions with the radiologist they diagnosed this as
having a small bleed under the capsule of the spleen, but there was no lesion seen on the scan. There was no renal injury
although a test of the urine showed that there was considerable blood in the urine. Mr. Shepherd was admitted to the ward
and kept under close observation. He remained stable throughout his stay in Hospital. He had two further CT scans and one
further ultra sound, and this confirmed that he had the bleed within the spleen itself which had not actually ruptured. Mr.
Shepherds symptoms settled down and he was fit to be discharged on the 19th May 2003.

To note that the radiologists prognosis of Mr. Shepherd having a small bleed under the capsule of the spleen was incorrect
as Professor Godfrey Laferla confirmed the ultra sound confirmed that the bleed was within the spleen itself which had not
actually ruptured.

The Courts have asked Professor Godfrey Laferla how he would classify these injuries? There can be no mistake in the
interpretation of the response of the Professor who has answered quite grievous injuries pertaining in his definition
specifically to a ruptured spleen which would be considered a life threatening injury that would necessitate surgical
intervention to save the life of the patient.

The Professor responded to an injury which in trueness did not actually happen, in actuality the spleen did NOT rupture
meaning then by the same interpretation this could NOT be considered a life threatening injury which would NOT
necessitate surgical intervention to save the life of the patient as indeed Mr. Shepherd was discharged without medical
intervention other than scans and a drip.

Therefore the injury classification of quite grievous in the context of the answer above cannot be attributed as the same
quite grievous classification in the context of the actual medical symptoms of Mr. Shepherd.

[AK1 a], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to Mr. Shepherd not being in danger of loss of life
the court finds to the contrary. The Defence for clarity asks and points out;

The Defence argues with regards distinctively to Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code Laws of Malta by legal definition Mr.
Shepherd cannot be clause 216 the only sub clause under this charge possibly applicable as an alleged charge would be 216
(1) (a) if it can give rise to danger of - (i) loss of life;

The only person during this period to attribute (a) if it can give rise to danger of - (i) loss of life, is Dr Nicole Camilleri who
did so without any medical reasons! And it must be stated that this doctors sole reason of attributing clause (i) loss of life, is
her claim that the patient was semi conscious? Which is in dire conflict with her senior professional colleagues and
Hospital documents? Something so crucial to be in disharmony warrants an investigation. Further it has been stated on
Oath with probing also from the Courts that this period of (i) loss of life, was for one to two hours only? That during
this period there was NO intervention or dramatic casualty given to save the life of this patient? There was NO
medicines given? In fact during this period the patient was left alone with an IV drip only?
[AK1 b], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to Mr. Shepherd fractured rib. The Defence for
clarity asks and points out;

The Chairman of the Department of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at St. Luke’s Hospital - Professor Godfrey
Laferla on Oath stated Mr. Shepherd was admitted to the ward and kept under close observation. He remained
stable throughout his stay in Hospital. Mr. Shepherds symptoms settled down and he was fit to be discharged on the
19th May 2003.

* Further a fractured rib would have completely healed itself before the governance of Law which would imply 216 (1): d
if it causes any mental or physical infirmity lasting for a period of thirty days or more; There is no evidence to prove that
Mr. Shepherds fractured rib had not healed, quite the contrary from the statements of Professor Godfrey Laferla and the
respected medically known healing time for such.

In conclusion the magistrate is deliberately ignoring senior medical professionals, the Stature and Articles of Maltese Law
which express definitions that clearly have been overridden by self creation in her personal abhorrence against the accused
and his family which has become abundantly clear in her manipulating of evidence contained within her judgement and
exposed throughout this document of contention in order for her to hone her prejudicial anguish targeted at the innocence
of the accused and Ramona, which is made ever so clear in the severity of her sentencing.

[AK1 c], Here in the Judgement the magistrate makes reference to the nature and ferocity. The Defence for clarity
asks and points out;

As clarified in this document of contention this „ferocity‟ is manufactured in the minds of the complainants and the desire
of the magistrate, which has exhaustibly been proven artificial.