Appeals court goes for better option in beach rape case

Two young men, who had been jailed for two years for complicity in the rape of a 14-year-old Swedish student, had their jail term suspended for four years on appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the men's claim to have been "innocent bystanders" but concluded that a suspended jail term, and an accompanying supervision order, would serve a better purpose.

The two-year term would serve as retribution, the fact that it was suspended would serve as a deterrent, and the supervision order would ensure the men's rehabilitation, Mr Justice David Scicluna ruled.

The two men, who were 16 at the time, had originally been jailed for two years for complicity with their (then) 17-year-old friend who had been jailed for four years for the rape of the girl on a beach in St Julians on June 27, 2002.

All three appealed before Mr Justice Scicluna who, earlier this month, reduced the jail term of the 17-year-old to two years after noting that the Magistrates' Court had not taken his age into account.

Mr Justice Scicluna yesterday handed down judgment in the case of the two 16-year-olds.

On June 27, 2002, the three friends were at Bamboo Bar when they saw a boy, whom they knew, with his foreign girlfriend and noticed that she was drunk.

The 17-year-old told his two friends that by the end of the night he would have slept with the girl. Later that evening the three friends noticed the couple leave the bar and head towards a nearby beach. That was when the 17-year-old decided to follow the couple accompanied by his two friends.

The court heard the girl explain how she was raped by the 17-year-old while the other two pinned her down on the ground.

In their appeals, the two 16-year-olds claimed they were only "innocent bystanders" but the judge disagreed after examining the evidence.

In the case of one of the boys, the judge had no doubt that his actions constituted complicity as he actually held the girl down. The other 16-year-old denied holding her down but the judge ruled that, even if he were given the benefit of the doubt, both 16-year-olds knew the intentions of their older friend and reinforced those intentions by accompanying him on the beach.

The judge heard probation officers explain how both young men were settling in their job and how one of them showed a keen interest in religion.

After reflecting on the punishment, the judge ruled that, although the two-year-jail term handed down by the first court was an appropriate punishment, the two men had not actually raped the girl and seemed to have been dragged to the beach by their friend. Besides, they both had clean criminal records.

In the circumstances, the judge ruled that suspending the jail term and placing the men under a supervision order would serve as retribution, a deterrent and also as a form of rehabilitation.

Names are not being published because the men were minors at the time of the commission of the crime.

Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Joseph Giglio were defence counsel.