Waylon Johnston
10 years jail for raping niece
Accused had previous convictions
A man was yesterday jailed for 10 years after an all-male jury found him guilty by six votes to three of raping his seven-year-old niece in 1998.
The tension was palpable in the court room as the foreman of the jury was about to read out the verdict. When family members waiting outside heard the news, they started crying.
During submissions on punishment, the accused became visibly emotional as Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono explained to defence lawyer Joe Mifsud the minimum and maximum jail terms according to law. The judge said the minimum the accused was facing was two years and four months and the maximum was 23 years.
The jurors also found him guilty by eight votes to one of defiling a minor.
Dr Mifsud asked the court to take into consideration the fact that the verdict in the case of the first charge of rape was a minimum, the incident happened many years ago and that it took a long time for the crime to be reported.
He said that his client was 17 years old at the time and that his police record was clean.
Lawyer Nadine Sant, from the Attorney General's Office, asked the court to jail the accused for the maximum term possible and also to take into consideration the suffering the girl and her family had gone through. She also asked for a protection order to be issued.
The judge said the criminal record of the accused indicated that he had been given a suspended jail term for threatening the police, refusing to give his particulars and breaching the peace. He had also been convicted three times of driving without insurance cover.
Mr Justice Galea Debono said that besides the criminal record, he also took into consideration the enormous effect the case had on the personality of the victim, as she herself had testified, and the break-up within the family as a result of what had happened.
The girl, now 18 years old, had first spoken about her ordeal when she was 13-years-old. She testified that she had first come to realise what had happened to her during her personal and social development lessons in Form 2.
The accused had had sex with the girl four times and had committed lewd acts with her on one occasion in Ħal Far, the court heard.
The court ordered a ban on publication of all names.
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Maria Zammit
Nov 8th 2009, 06:51
Why do criminals expect leniency when convicted for their crimes when they did not show any compassion whatsoever towards their victims? What about remorse and a public apology? What about compensation to make up for their crime?
Justice means giving the victim what was taken from him. How is that achieved?
Mustafa Abuseadah
Nov 8th 2009, 04:54
1,10,jew 20 years, at least the message has been delivered ;) Justice jew xejn,,,,,
Prosit lil autorita,
Sahha,
Bob McClelland
Nov 8th 2009, 03:32
The jury heard the evidence, we did not; but I need to say that majority verdicts can never lead to genuine justice in the free world; it is far better to release 1000 guilty felons than to ever convict ONE innocent soul! Guilty beyond reasonable doubt? No such thing with majority verdicts! I LOVE MALTA - but some aspects are mindless beyond belief. Bob McClelland
AUSTRALIA
Charles Muscat
Nov 8th 2009, 01:52
I wonder who should be ashamed whether this monster or the news paper for protecting this animal's name. He should be named and shamed so he will be avoided in the future.
Dave Alan Caruana
Nov 7th 2009, 18:25
having cannabis for personal consumption = up to 2 years
raping a minor = from 2 years 4 months
how can a non-crime and a heinous crime fall in the same ballpark?
Maltese criminal law is a mess, and the real criminals always get off lightly it seems.
Lisa Seisun
Nov 7th 2009, 18:19
10 years jail which are only 8 months each year than he will appeal and maybe go for only 2 years !!!! hahaha I cant believe it !
Victor Felice
Nov 7th 2009, 15:45
What a pathetic ruling - it should be 10 years for each time plus another 5 for lewd acts, with no possibility of parole. And what is the reasoning behind not disclosing the accused's name? His name SHOULD be made public and his photo plastered everywhere.
It is shocking to think that the minimum is 28 months for raping a minor.
Karl Consiglio
Nov 7th 2009, 15:23
Did anyone make any research as to why the guy felt the need to do such terrible acts? What was the cause? Because you can't blame someone for being sick.
Charlene Bugeja
Nov 7th 2009, 12:00
10 years only???
nella bencini
Nov 7th 2009, 11:00
Justice has been done. At last.