Once again I have to step in to rectify another inaccurate reference to a court judgment referred to in the article by Grace Attard (Sexual Exploitation, March 15).

The correspondent referred to a recent judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeal where a man was acquitted of the charge of trafficking for purposes of prostitution of a Russian woman. She seemed to query how the man could have been acquitted on the grounds of insufficient evidence despite the woman's evidence.

In fact, the man was not acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence but because - as was very clearly stated in the judgment - the Attorney General quoted the wrong provision of the law in his note listing the charges the accused was to answer for before the Magistrates' Court.

The Court of Criminal Appeal relied heavily on the woman's evidence to overturn a judgment of the Court of Magistrates acquitting the man and instead found him guilty of all other charges, including those of living off the woman's earnings, keeping a house or part thereof for the purposes of prostitution, and other related charges. It could not, however, find him guilty of trafficking because the wrong provision was indicated by the prosecution.

This is yet another example of wrong information being given to readers simply because the correspondent did not bother to check the actual judgment online, which was available, as most judgments are, within hours after it was pronounced in open court.