Abused girl in institution for nine years as case drags out

A judge yesterday blasted a magistrate's court for taking nine years to process an abuse case, leaving the neglected child in an institution throughout this time.

The mother of the girl was at first found not guilty of seriously injuring her three-year-old daughter by a magistrate but that was overturned yesterday and she was given a suspended jail term for not taking proper care of her hyperactive child.

But beyond the judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono probed the delayed sentencing.

He said that although there was a huge amount of evidence to sift through, it took five-and-a-half years for the prosecution to close its case and two-and-a-half years for the defence.

On top of that, they made their final submissions some two years after that which resulted in the child being kept in a home all this time, despite her wish to be with her mother, the judge said.

The case was first brought to light by an emergency doctor at the hospital, who flagged injuries on the child, saying the girl could not have been hurt in that way because of her hyperactivity.

The mother's boyfriend, who had fathered four out of her five children, had been found not guilty of injuring and neglecting her because he was mainly at work when the incidents occurred.

He had only found out that the girl was injured after he arrived home and took her to hospital together with her mother.

In fact, from 1994 to 1995 the girl was admitted to hospital four times and suffered bruises all over her body, a perforated ear drum, a mildly displaced elbow, foam stuck up her nose and even two broken arms.

When she testified, the mother had said that the injuries had occurred because her daughter was very hyperactive and would get up to all sorts of trouble.

She said that when the child broke both arms, she was playing on a makeshift see-saw with her sister when she fell off.

In fact when psychiatric tests were carried out on the girl they found her to be suffering from depression as well as being hyper active. They had placed her in recovery at the Mount Carmel young people's unit.

In his considerations, Mr Justice Galea Debono said he agreed the magistrate's court could have reasonably and legally given the benefit of the doubt to the mother, however, he could not agree on the appreciation of the facts.

He said that the first court had not considered that the girl's injuries could have been caused by the mother's carelessness in looking after her daughter.

The court also said that the woman had radically changed her life since the case had first begun, and also pointed out that the girl was now almost adult and could not remember the incidents.

He decided that a suspended jail term was enough but also ordered a supervision order of three years.