Of course the court and the witnesses can be wrong. The ‘court’, in this case, is a failed Labour Party general election (2013) candidate who spends her free time at boxing-matches with Manuel Mallia and her drug-addled, ‘known to the police’ brother, and who only got her appointment as a magistrate because of her political connections and a previous relationship with the Justice Minister, Owen Bonnici.

And the witnesses in question were one teacher who taught the girl in primary school and said she was ‘anxious’ and a psychologist (not a psychiatrist).

And no, her sister’s account is genuine. You can tell. It is the sister who went to court who strikes me as having been manipulated by her mother.

It didn’t even emerge from the testimony in court that her father was a monster and that she lived a life of terror. A life of terror because she was shouted at a couple of times before the age of 11?

A monster because of a rhyme which turns out not to be something chanted at her specifically after all?

She is clearly not intelligent at all. No person of even average intelligence would still be struggling with O-levels at 20.

The main reason you should be angry at this is that it undermines those children who really do suffer at the hands of their parents – the ones who are locked in cages, who are beaten (she wasn’t – her father never laid a finger on her) and starved.

There’s no need for me to explain it.

Please explain difference between “injustice” and your unjustness apart from the fact that the former is in good dictionaries while “unjustness” is underlined in red as being an error

That bottom-line is a man being made to pay 83,000 euros in compensation to his daughter for ‘upsetting’ her before the age of 11.

On that basis, we should all be suing our parents for compensation and our children should all be suing us likewise.

Whatever a magistrate is presented with, he or she is at liberty to decide freely on the credibility of those statements and that evidence.

I find it particularly rich that a magistrate whose brother has been a walking ruin most of his life should be so cavalier about the cause and effect of parenting. Does she think her parents are to blame for the state of her brother? Is she encouraging him to sue them, and if so, how much compensation does she think he deserves?

The fact is, if a young woman is still struggling to obtain her O-levels at 20, it’s her fault and not the fault of a parent who hasn’t lived with her for the past decade or any rhyme he chanted at her when she was nine.

I’m also really uncomfortable with this precedent – suing parents for compensation? Oh please.

This was a civil suit and not a criminal case, and so there was no prosecution.

The daughter sued her father.

That’s why the father was ordered to pay compensation. If it were a criminal case, he would have been fined or sent to prison.

If the prosecution presented a distorted case, isn’t the defence’s duty to present the actual facts?

Should magistrates investigate a case themselves?

Is it a case were the magistrate came to the said conclusion because the facts presented in court led inevitably to the said conclusions?