This is not the first time that jurors were retrospectively checked on their social-media posts after the jury.

Maltese jurors' online activity has been examined before. In each earlier case we found, though, the issue came up while the trial was still running. The Fenech investigation is the first reported case we found in which jurors' earlier posts were looked into after the jury had delivered its verdict.

The Melchior Spiteri trial, 2016

During the 2016 murder trial of Melchior Spiteri, the defence raised concerns about the chief juror. Among them were Facebook comments the juror had made about a decision in another court case, which the defence argued could indicate prejudice. The trial judge examined the issue before the trial concluded and rejected the objection.

The issue later formed part of the Attorney General's appeal after Spiteri was acquitted. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the alleged juror irregularity but confirmed the acquittal, finding that the Attorney General had not shown that the incident influenced the jury's decision in a way amounting to a breach in the administration of justice.

A juror's earlier Facebook activity had therefore already been scrutinised for possible bias. But it was raised while the trial was in progress, not discovered through an investigation after the verdict.

The Maksar trial, 2025

During the 2025 Maksar jury, a reserve juror was found to have secretly used a tablet during the trial. Court expert Martin Bajada examined the device's activity, including internet searches and Facebook Messenger communications. The juror was disqualified and fined.

Investigators looked back at what the juror had done on the device, but the investigation and the court's action came while the trial was still under way.

What is different about the Fenech investigation

The Malta Police Force stated on 17 September 2026 that its investigation concerns declarations jurors made when taking their oath, and in particular public comments some jurors may have made before the trial began. The investigation was opened after the jury had returned its verdict and the trial had ended.

The sequence is different from both earlier cases: alleged comments before the trial, then jury service and a verdict, and only then an investigation into those comments. We found no earlier reported Maltese case with that sequence. Maltese reporting on the investigation, including in Illum, has itself highlighted how unusual it is to examine jurors' earlier public comments after a trial rather than before the jury hears the evidence.

Evaluation

The claim is partly right. Jurors' online activity has been checked before, in the Spiteri trial in 2016 and the Maksar trial in 2025. What the claim describes, though, is jurors being checked retrospectively, after the jury. In both earlier cases the checks happened while the trial was running. Checking jurors' posts after a verdict, as in the Fenech case, has no earlier reported precedent that we could find.