Editorial

On September 28, 2008, The Sunday Times carried a front page story saying that certain individuals had attempted to persuade the family of a 14-year-old girl, who was at the centre of rape allegations, not to proceed with her complaint in return for a sum of money.

The following week, Chief Justice Vincent DeGaetano was called upon to review the four defendants' bail conditions. Departing from the point at issue, he decided to comment on this alleged interference, saying: "In this case it seems that there have been manoeuvres by people who had an interest to see that this case does not reach the courts." He went further, pointing out that it seemed that lawyers were involved.

In a leader we called on the authorities to investigate these attempts (should our appeal have been necessary?) and to establish whether the lawyers acted within acceptable boundaries or not. We were informed some days later that the police were looking into these claims.

On November 23, 2008, we ran another story pointing out that the people making claims of interference - the family of the girl, who had been handed €7,000 for "psychological support" by one of these individuals - had still not been interviewed by police.

Last week we took up the matter again, because the authorities had still not spoken to the family about their allegations, though they did find the time to tell them not to speak to the press. We also pointed out that the police had not responded to our requests for an update on the case.

It was with some surprise, therefore, that a few days ago the police sent us a response of sorts, saying: "The case was investigated and it did not result that there were any breaches of the law and thus no legal action can be taken." It was with even more surprise that we were told by the family that the police had still not spoken to them.

Several issues of grave concern arise from this case. First, the rape of a young girl - she was under 14 when the acts are alleged to have occurred - is a serious criminal offence. Unlike a civil matter, whether a prosecution takes place or not cannot be subject to a negotiated settlement, particularly once a complaint has been made to the police. That is the kind of thing that takes place in countries that do not have a properly functioning legal system.

Second, the defendants' lawyers should not approach the complainant or her family directly. There is too much risk of undue influence on the part of those who know the law conversing with those who do not. They should have advised the family to engage a legal representative and only communicate with that person if they had something to say.

Third, the Chief Justice was perturbed enough by what he had heard to raise the issue in public. How could it be that the police never sought to interview the people who were making the complaint; the same people who had prompted the country's most senior judge to pass such a comment? On what grounds did the police establish whether or not what took place constituted "breaches of the law"?

It is not until these questions are answered, and answered in full, that the public can have confidence in what has taken place. And we will not stop asking questions until that happens.