• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Nadur rape case

Police probe bribery attempt allegations

'The investigation is still ongoing'

The police are investigating claims that lawyers, a priest and the family of the Nadur men accused of raping a 14-year-old girl tried to prevent her from taking the matter to court.

All the police would say in reply to a list of questions about the matter was that investigations were under way. This is the first official confirmation of the investigations since the bribery allegations were first made by The Sunday Times just under two weeks ago.

The weekly newspaper reported the mother of the girl saying that a lawyer and close relatives of the accused had persuaded her to sign a contract stating that members of her family would not testify in court in return for €7,000 in "psychological support".

The defendants, brothers Peter Paul and Josef Said, stand accused of raping the girl. Mark Lorry Said and Peter Paul Debono were charged with her defilement. They are all under house arrest.

The girl's mother said they were approached by close relatives of the Said brothers and a priest, who acted as an intermediary, shortly after the rape and defilement allegations were made last month.

After the family pressed ahead, on the day the men were arrested, the girl's mother said another approach was made - this time by two different lawyers (one from Gozo and another from Malta) who said they wanted to "see if they could come to an arrangement" over the arraignment of the men. The woman immediately called a family acquaintance and the men left.

The woman said she told the investigating police inspector about the contract and the second attempt to stop the claims from reaching the courts. However, to date, it remains unclear whether an investigation has been launched into the matter. The Times asked whether the police had launched an investigation after being told about the alleged approach, which, if proven, is illegal.

A police spokesman said yesterday that "...investigations have been taken in hand immediately upon receipt of the information. As you may well appreciate, no further information can be furnished at the moment since the investigation is still ongoing".

The case was raised by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano in a judgment last week through which he imposed stricter bail conditions on the accused. The Chief Justice noted that there seem to have been "manoeuvres by people who had an interest to see that the case does not reach the courts. It seems that, before the accused were charged in court, money changed hands in order for there to be withdrawal of the complaint (in respect of the accused bearing the Said surname)".

Following the judgment and the Sunday Times stories, the matter was also raised in Parliament by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo.

When asked to comment about the issue, a spokesman for the Home Affairs Ministry said: "We are aware that this case is already subject to judicial proceedings. During these proceedings, the court already made reference to the allegations you mentioned. The Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs has full confidence in these proceedings and sees no reason to comment about them or matters that are ancillary to them".

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

Noel Cutajar (on 11/10/08)
@ C. Camilleri - Another issue...if a lawyer was involved in this 'bribery attempt', are all lawyers to be so as C. CAMILLERI said. May I remind you that in this world we live in we find all sorts of people. Do not forget that many of your rights that you enjoy today were a result of those lawyers who had in their heart the rights of the individual. Therefore in view of what you said, if the priest is corrupt then the whole Church is corrupt (just playing around with your comment)
Noel Cutajar (on 11/10/08)
I suggest you to read article 198 of the Criminal Code - Chapter 9 and the other relevant sections. Though not knowing the facts of the case such as age of victim, place where such alleged incidents had occurred, the investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint of the injured party. Now in this case, the essential facts are not available and I do not know whether the Court can proceed ex officio or base the report on the complaint of the injured party. On the other hand, the fact that they were approached by a third party is tantamount to an offence. Secondly if it is found that they are directly involved and not some initiative of a third party, they risk lose their bail (including the forfeiture of the sum). On the other hand, there is always the risk that the victim may pardon them.
Edward Pavia (on 11/10/08)
Victoria Attard argument is totally naive because although we don´t know what the priest true intentions were to allow himself to be involved as some sort of a go-between in this matter, the fact remains that he did allow himself to represent people whose sole purpose was to buy the victim´s family silence and hence to perfect justice. This is a criminal offence. The priest role in this matter is very obvious. It was to exert whatever infuence he may have had on the family to accept the financial arrangement in return for their silence. I really don´t understand what possessed him to do this in the first place. I totally agree with Alaine Sultana argument. If someone commits a crime, the law must take its course. No one must be allowed to buy their way from receiving justice for their crimes.
M D Fenech (on 11/10/08)
@D Bartolo
I also have my doubts as Ms Hansen has. Let's hope this is not the case of Only in Malta, or should I say only in Gozo.
Poor child.
Let's hope justice does its job well and does not look at faces.
Pamela Hansen (on 11/10/08)
Believe me sense is anything but common.
D. Bartolo (on 11/10/08)
To Pamela Hansen:

Expected more from you than put in a question like that!!! Surely common sense says it all.
How could you ever even think the accused be under house arrest together with the victim??
Paul Muscat (on 11/10/08)
Since I don,t understand the "court's jargon", can I ask if "house arrest" means that the learned and just judge, "arrested "the house, and not the would be rapers?
Elaine Sultana (on 11/10/08)
@ A Muscat - 'However consider this: is not payment of one's money a punishment? Should jail be considered the only punishment? Eur 7,000 is too low, but how about Eur 100,000? If there is the full acceptance of both victim and perpetrators, why shouldn't they come to an equitable arrangement?'

I can see your point but the whole idea of justice is not only punishment but to make society a safer place to live in. If the family where to accept the money and not press charges, what then? The perpetrator would still be running around and may be looking out for other children to molest.

Would you feel safe that criminals were made to pay for their actions in a material way but left to roam the country and commit other offences till they have to pay up again when they are caught? I guess not.

Rape is as bad as committing wilful homicide - it is done intentionally and will have serious psycholocal effects. Do you not think that childhood molestation is a suicidal agent in the long run?

I have studied child molestation and forensically it is hideous, imagine psychologically
Robert Scullion (on 11/10/08)
@ Aldo Muscat

So rape is acceptable if you can afford it?

You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking money can help.
alfredmallia (on 10/10/08)
to aldo muscat. what kind of reasoning is this? is the girl being auctioned? to these guys?
Olina Tretyak (on 10/10/08)
It all depends on the text of the contract. If the contract stated that they voluntarily pay the psychological damages to the girl, and the girl's parent agreed for the sum of 7000 eur and are not going to sue men in a civil court for those damages, there is NOTHING WRONG in that. Parties agreed. But this goes ONLY for a civil court, where both parties speak for themselves. In the Criminal Court the case is Police vs lawbreakers, and it is a public obligation that crime will be punished. If in the text of contract there is written "not to testify in Criminal Court" - then lawyers are in trouble. But if there is written that parents accepted 7000 and will not testify in Civil Court - there is no trouble for lawyers and for no one. If the type of Court was not specified - then there is a way out for lawyers to build defense, stating that they meant Civil Court only.
Charles Falzon (on 10/10/08)
And now a priest?
Victoria Attard
Part of the psychological support is for justice must be seen being done.
As for the lawyers, they should be disbarred and fully prosecuted.

Victoria Attard (on 10/10/08)
The lawyers are experts of the law and one can never accept such deals.

But for the priest, it is a different picture. In my opinion, the priest looked at this case from the social and psychological point of view. I imagine the priest seeing everybody a loser if the war is fought in courts. The priest tried to save at least four families (those of the accused men) and that of the victim by suggesting to offer her psychological support.

I agree that nobody is above the law and that justice is to be done to everybody but I can see good intentions in the priest's attitude.
Charles Sammut (on 10/10/08)
No winners in this case. Kids should be thought sex education in Schools so this sort of thing does not happen. And if it does to report it right away. Why has the identity of the priest not been disclosed?
Aldo Muscat (on 10/10/08)
I agree with you all that rape is a despicable offence, and should be accorded a severe punishment.

However consider this: is not payment of one's money a punishment? Should jail be considered the only punishment? Eur 7,000 is too low, but how about Eur 100,000? If there is the full acceptance of both victim and perpetrators, why shouldn't they come to an equitable arrangement?

I invite your inevitable comments!
Emanuel Farrugia (on 10/10/08)
The courage of the girl's mother is admirable. At least that innocent girl has somebody who cares about her. Unlike all the others who do not seem to care that the girl's life will never be rid of this horrid experience. Have money, buy freedom, how despicable.

If this case is proved, the lawyers should be disbarred and the Priest should be defrocked. He brings discredit to what he represents.
Pamela Hansen (on 10/10/08)
The men are reportedly “under house arrest”. Please someone tell me it is not the house where the assaulted girl is in residence.
J GALEA (on 10/10/08)
@ Mr. Millam,

Well said.

If justice prevails, i.e. the rapists, the priest and the lawyers get prosecuted, then finally we can say that Malta has moved forward, and it is not anymore a case of 'WHO YOU KNOW'.

C.Camilleri (on 10/10/08)
If what is being alleged about the rape & bribery cases is true, then the brothers should be ashamed for the alleged rape. At least they should have given a thought about their brother, who holds a high position, and is considered to be quite honest & a gentleman indeed..

The alleged bribery case by the Lawyer? Well I would accept such things happening, although I do not agree, but for the Priest? Oh NO NEVER.
Bill Millam (on 10/10/08)
It's called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and if indeed lawyers are involved, they should be disbarred and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - period!
Lawyers are officers of the court and one expects them to uphold the law, not make a travesty of it.
As for the priest, hebrings further shame to the cloth he wears.

Bill Millam
Los Angeles

Poll

Was the budget good for Malta?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku