This is insanely unjust
A man has been in prison for more than a year for sexually abusing his daughter (age unspecified, now and then) after the judgement of the magistrate’s court was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
He has protested his innocence all along and when he was sentenced, his defence lawyer said several times that his wife and daughter, on whose testimony he was jailed, should be investigated themselves.
The daughter actually withdrew her testimony at one point in the proceedings. Despite her claims of abuse, medical examinations had found her to be a virgin.
An inquiry was opened, and this has now led to his wife being charged with perjury. She has been held on remand, which means that both of this girl’s parents are currently behind bars.
One or two newspapers have reported that she, too, will be/has been similarly charged.
Meanwhile, the man’s defence lawyer has been petitioning the various institutions, including obviously the court, for his release on the grounds that he has been jailed for a crime he did not commit.
The court has refused his request because, apparently, there are no legal provisions to cater for a situation like this. His wife and daughter have not yet been convicted of perjury; they are as yet only charged with perjury and that perjury has to be proved before the unavoidable conclusion can be reached that he is in prison because they lied about him.
This is such an upside-down way of looking at things. Their evidence should have been tested for perjury before he was prosecuted, given the forcefulness with which he protested his innocence.
And now that they have been charged with perjury, even if they are found to be not guilty on the grounds of insufficient evidence, nobody can say that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the man we are talking about committed that crime. The pall of his wife’s and daughter’s possible great lies hang over the judgement which put him in prison.
He may well be completely innocent and yet there is no legal provision – or so we are told – for removing him from prison until his wife’s and daughter’s perjury trials are concluded. And even then, if their perjury is not conclusively proven, he will stay in jail.
33 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I see the Law Commissioner is doing a splendid job.
Hemm bzonn riforma! Hemm bzonn titwieled it-Tieni Repubblika! Isimghu id-diskors tieghi fil-Parlament fil-blablablabla…..
Il-gurisprudenza tezor, my dears. Imma l-gustizzja nit***ku minnha.
The problem starts with the police and the prosecution. I think that people are arraigned too quickly and on a fairly light basis.
The reasoning may be that the court will eventually prove any guilt or otherwise. But this is not fair at all. Just imagine what one goes through after he is arraigned and it is much worse if he is proven guilty while being innocent.
A guilty verdict does not always mean justice. It depends on the ability of the prosecution and defence. Those who have money can have the services of excellent lawyers and one never knows how a jury is going to decide.
Much rests with the responsibility of the police and the initial groundwork.
This brings us closer to Sudan than the EU. Can the President of the Republic step in (after lodging of appeal)?
She is way too busy backing causes that support women right now.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140530/local/president-promises-to-back-causes-that-support-women.521230
I do not think the man’s lawyer can actually approach the President of Malta on this case – the reason being that any ‘Presidential pardon’ requested would imply, even remotely, an admission of guilt and of correct, and exhaustive, Court procedures according to the law.
I understand that is the position constitutionally. Dr Tonio Azzopardi would certainly have requested such pardon were it possible for him to do so in the first place.
Is this guy for real? I never heard Toyota admit their cars are unreliable, notwithstanding some 10 million recalls in the past few years.
Of course PN will keep on losing with such statements from it’s leader. Or is it Times of Malta misquoting him?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140531/local/pn-leader-admits-party-lacks-credibility-but-says-it-is-working-to-win-it-back.521312
[Daphne – I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but with your continuous carping it’s the credibility of your own comments and the motivation behind them that’s called into question. If you prefer Joseph Muscat just bloody well vote for him at this rate. The Nationalist Party is never going to have a leader like Muscat, and that’s exactly why large groups of people vote for it. It’s a different political party not a different football team. How hard is this to understand?]
Freedom5, the difference between the two main political parties is their adherence or otherwise to principles.
It ought to be clear even to you that the PN has distinct fundamental rules which it will not bend and for which 100,000 have voted.
Joseph Muscat on the other hand manages to attract 134,00-odd voters to a party the moral principles of which are highly dubious.
This in itself should be a cause of worry to you because it shows a population with declining standards.
Yet since you do not seem to be perturbed, I am free to assume that you concur with the MLP’s policy of ditching ideology.
Having said that, should you prefer taking the childish route that Joseph Muscat is taking and which is being echoed by the pro-MLP media, that this was a race between Simon Busuttil and Joseph Muscat, then I have some bad news for you.
Simon Busuttil increased his votes by 32,000 – having won around 68,000 in 2009. Joseph Muscat’s votes have actually decreased.
The dilemma is that he has been convicted and no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence as do his daughter and his ex-wife who stand charged with perjury.
If he is offered and accepts a pardon, he accepts guilt and in doing so loses the right to constitutional and possible civil redress against his ex-wife and daughter.
The real problem is the delay of our court system and no government has yet done anything about this.
I eagerly await Baxxter’s defence .
Defence of what? The law courts?
My heart goes out to this man, but wouldn’t you say that we can’t rush things especially in a case such as this which appeals very strongly to our emotions and our 21st-century sensibilities?
Had I been in this man’s shoes I wouldn’t be so “cool and relaxed”, admittedly, but we can’t just buck the system for a perceived anomaly.
One of the main “points” that remains very unclear (to me at least) is how the new information came to light. He had been protesting his innocence since the beginning, it is being said, so why is he being believed now?
It’s all very well to say free him now – which is the way to go if an injustice is being perpetrated in his regard – but I think there are quite a few murky issues that need clearing up.
“In his application in the Court of Appeal today, Dr Azzopardi said this court knew how much the man had insisted on his innocence.
It was also aware that according to the gynaecological examinations carried out on the girl, she was still a virgin and intact, in spite of her claims that he sexually abused her five times.”
Not for the first time one must needs question what training our judges undergo. How did the Appeals Court judge reach his/her conclusion based on that evidence?
It has been obvious for a very long time that many are not fit for purpose. Some have even ended up in the European Court of Human rights much to Malta’s embarrassment.
“The daughter actually withdrew her testimony at one point in the proceedings. Despite her claims of abuse, medical examinations had found her to be a virgin”
Surely you must be aware that not every form of sexual abuse ruptures the hymen.
[Daphne – Obviously. However, the daughter claimed full-on rape, so the fact that her hymen was intact raised serious doubts about that.]
Dan mhux l-ewwel kaz simili jidher li l-pulizija involuti f’din it-taqsima mhux profesjonali. Hekk imisshom jinghataw it-transfers mhux ghax tkun nazzjonalist.
Li jinkwetani huwa li dak il-laburist li sawwat marid ghax dejqu super one ghadni ma smajtx li tressaq il-qorti. Tista’ ticcekja please?
I suppose that the judiciary are dragging their feet about this case in view of the legal precedent that will be created.
In our system, one is found either guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the case becomes res judicata i.e. there is no more possibility for further appeals by the accused or the prosecution, then the case is closed and the rule of double jeopardy kicks in.
I write this because I am not sure what you mean by “even if they are found to be not guilty on the grounds of insufficient evidence”.
We do not have such grounds — though lack of evidence should mean that the charge remains unproven — but some countries like Italy have them.
One can be discharged “per non aver commesso il fatto” which is definitive and one can be discharged “per mancanza di prove” in which instance new evidence may lead to the reopening of the case. One may argue that the latter system is more just.
Many people, myself included, are aghast to see the injustice of an innocent man behind bars but this happens because we reason under the mistaken belief that we have courts of justice when what we have are courts of law. Sad but true.
The courts may only apply the law as they find it even if that might sometimes end in injustice as seen through the eyes of a layman.
What is deplorable is the fact that we have had a penal code for more than a century and a half (with many amendments from time to time) and yet — as you rightly point out — there are no legal provisions contemplating a case such as this.
Another point: virginity i.e. an intact hymen, does not exclude the crime of which the unfortunate man was wrongly convicted. In rape, for instance, any type of penetration — not necessarily vaginal — constitutes rape and only penetration needs to be proved.
One hopes for an early and just resolution of this case.
I weep in despair when I read these articles. I should have thought that such a release was automatic!
Where’s the cock gone?
He is enjoying his 30 pieces of silver.
Time for the President to step in.
Many judges…little justice.
Why not put him on parole?
And if, in the fullness of time, it will be discovered that he had indeed been deprived of his freedom unjustly but according to an asinine law, to add insult to injury, the outraged taxpayer, who mutters between clenched teeth “There but for the grace of God, go I” will have to suffer the indignity of forking out thousands of euros to compensate the victim.
All he can do is ask for a presidential pardon.
Sister Ray, I think if he gets the presidential pardon he would be like accepting the guilt.
I for one would prefer being behind bars than getting a pardon on the grounds that pardons are handed out to guilty people.
On another note, how many chances are there that Farrugia Sacco will escape justice?
And while he is almost certainly innocent and they won’t release him, not even on bail, a convicted rapist and repeat offender is given 5000 euros.
[Daphne – You are confused. Bail is what you get BEFORE you are sentenced and while awaiting trial or undergoing trial.]
Ok, not bail but whatever, he should be out, even if he has to sign a police book daily and hand in his passport until its sorted.
I call on Owen Bonnici to arrange for an “outing” by day and night (24 hrs) for all magistrates to experience a prison cell at Kordin.
Maybe this will help them sentence people better and also avoid further injustices for the innocent.
The magistrate who quoted the law as an excuse to say he is powerless should remember that the spirit of law is to ensure justice for everyone!
He therefore has a moral responsibility to take quick action and give the man his freedom, if necessary on bail.
A charge of perjury by his wife means there is reasonable doubt of her accusations. This goes back to the basic classroom teachings that 1+1=2.
How the minister and magistrate can sleep at night I do not know!
[Daphne – Bail is for people awaiting trial or on trial, not for people who have been sentenced, Rob. I think you mean parole, and that is not the court’s competence but the prison authority’s.]
You are obviously right, Daphne. What I meant is they should not restrict one day more of freedom for a man who was convicted with reasonable doubt and if necessary, until the legal red-tape does its thing, he can be put under house arrest.
Whoever made the wrong decision despite clear medical evidence to the contrary ought to serve time himself, in lieu of victim, in contrition.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140531/local/request-for-mans-release-from-jail-refused.521338
From a layman’s point of view, I think that the best solution out of this legal mess, would be a speedy trial of the mother and daughter. If they are found guilty of false testimony, then the father’s case would be (again speedily), re-examined.
The key word is speedily.