Man charged with defiling 13-year-old
A 31-year-old from Hamrun this morning pleaded not guilty to defiling and corrupting the 13-year-old best friend of his niece.
Defence lawyer Jose Herrera told Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna that the girl was obsessed with his client and even tried to run away from home to be with him.
“However, you cannot corrupt somebody who has already been corrupted,” Dr Herrera said adding that the girl had previous sexual relationships and the relationship between her and his client was completely consensual.
Police inspector Melvin Camilleri said the lawyer was mistaken and this was the girl’s first sexual experience.
Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna remanded the accused in custody because of the risk of tampering with evidence.
The accused is not being named to defend the identity of the alleged victim.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Doreen CAmilleri
Jul 3rd 2010, 07:21
If, by law, a person under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor , then whatever and how ever many sexual experiences the minor has had, the onus should be on the 'responsible 'adult'.
Consent should not come into it. Unfortunately this way of thinking does not seem to apply much in our courts, and as a result we are failing tot protect our children!
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 23:57
If i remember correctly, the same lawyer had written some months ago an article related to the issue of consensuality and responsibility on this same newspaper, and i seem to recollect same author calling for a lowering of the age. I may be wrong but can anyone provide any info on this.
A Attard
Jul 2nd 2010, 21:40
The defence is engaging in a "blame the victim" tactic. Totally disgusting! He's 31. She's 13 - hardly old enough to give INFORMED consent. Even if she were sitting naked in his lap, he's still the adult, she's still the child.
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 20:51
Has anyone read about the case, still under investigation, of French soccer stars Ribery, Benzema and Govou, who were involved in intimate encounters of a consensual nature with seventeen year old "escort girls"? I feel that this particular case in France may clarify certain issues regarding consensuality and responsibility.
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 20:48
@ Joseph Casha
I would greatly appreciate it if you were to read my comment carefully once again; it is quite succinct really. Where did i condemn anyone or pass judgement? My point referred to the statement "you cannot corrupt somebody who has already been corrupted". I felt that such a statement and its implications are monstrous. The statement appears to label unfortunate individuals who MAY (note use of modal expressing possibility) have erred once as being beyond reform or redemption and this would imply that they are "corrupt" (note use of inverted commas) for the rest of their lives.
Christian Sciberras
Jul 2nd 2010, 23:50
On the other hand, it isn't uncommon that someone who has erred once does it for the rest of his life, regardless of "innocence" or "excuses".
I'm not speaking of this case in particular, but remember the case of the young kid that kept causing trouble intentionally regardless of court warnings (including hitting a policewoman)?
It is simply a matter of finding the innocent from the whole flock, which is hard and quite rare.
So you can't really judge this girl from the lawyers statement. If she did what he said, intentionally, I wouldn't deem her "innocent" at all.
Olina Tretyak
Jul 2nd 2010, 20:03
One story is when teenagers both similar age have sex, then lawyers go into definition of consensual age (12) and presence/absence of violence.
Another story when adult person has sex with a child, other laws should apply. Adults are punished for sex with children regardless how much corrupted the mind of a child was already on the moment when that adult had sex with the child. Law which states "having sex with a minor knowing that minor is under certain ( ??? ) age".
Which age in Malta determined that adult having sex with such a child under... is considered a rape regardless circumstances, because child is not in mental position to protect himself from being molested? I assume that 14, like in other countries.
Most countries have different law articles, one - having sex with child under certain ( lets say 14) age, and another article having sex with teenager under 18 when other person is over 18.
Question of consesuality in case when one is 31 and another 13 is a lousy try.
Olina Tretyak
Jul 2nd 2010, 18:26
Interesting debate... In the book Advocate's Devil an advocate did brilliant job to acquit his client of serial rapes, proving that sex was consensual. Soon after the man raped the daughter of his advocate.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 19:02
"Soon after the man raped the daughter of his advocate." Yes Olina, that's why they say " be careful what you wish for ". It does not matter how the defense lawyer tries to cover it up, a 31 year old man having sex with a teenager is still called RAPE. I hope the Children Protection Agency and the Catholic Church have something to say about all this.
Olina Tretyak
Jul 2nd 2010, 19:35
That's a sward which hangs over every advocate: when you do your job well and in the interest of your client and in your own ambitions you win the case, you are leaving the perpetrator unpunished and prepared for more crimes. Unpunished crime brings more crime. You, being a lawyer, remain a member of the same society, and liable to become a victim of next crime just the same as any other citizen.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 17:11
What kind of a defense is that? We are talking about a 13 year old being defiled by a 31 year old man with or without consent. What parent is willing to admit that such a claim is justified. A 13 year old is just a baby and that's why we keep them home till they can fend for themselves. This is not something that we should overlook. If we do that then we might as well let everything else go and live like animals even though animals tend to protect their young. Where are the child protectors? How can anybody say that it is Ok for a 31 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old. What if this was your daughter? Maybe you say, it won't happen to my daughter! Think twice and never say never. If you love your kids, please don't let something like this happen to them. By the way teens are always obsessed and falling in love with their idols but that does not mean these idols have any right to go to bed with them.
Joseph Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:43
What kind of a twisted law would allow a 31 year old man to have consensual sex with a 13 year old? The rest of the Western world does not consider you an adult until you reach the age of 18? Only third world countries let things like this happen and that is purely to accommodate the man."The relationship between her and his client was completely consensual." What parent is willing to consent to let their 13 year old daughter have sex with a 31 year old man. This is only allowed in third world countries. I always said that Malta is not a third world country but I am starting to wonder. In other countries, this is what is considered RAPE in the first degree. Even if it was consensual as the lawyer claimed it was, it is still Rape. We are talking about a 13 year old juvenile whose mind is less than fully developed. So what is the big fuss about priest pedophiles that molested kids over 12? If the age of consent is 12 then the law has to be changed for the protection of children. I do hope all caring parents speak out about this.
M. Camilleri
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:13
The age of consent in Malta is 18 and not as erranously being stated by some as 12. The age of consent is not to be mixed up with the age where a person, with the consent of the parents or guardians, can get married which is actually lower than 18.
Apart from this, the principle that a corrupted minor cannot be further corrupted is not the juridical concept our courts have promulgated for long. There is quite a list of Court judgements where a "corrupted" minor was found to have been further "corrupted" by fresh lewd acts. The law does not define what lewd acts are but leaves it to the experienced judge to decide.
Ramon Casha
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:35
http://www.ageofconsent.com/malta.htm
M. Camilleri
Jul 3rd 2010, 10:34
The quoted site is not an official site although it give the impression that it is. It has many legal inaccuracies as well. The only accurate source is the laws of Malta section within the government portal.
M Mealclaff
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:09
@ Ramon Cashia.
I thought the age of consent in malta is 18 ( Possibly the highest in the world).
Where did you get the idea that it was 12 ?
Joseph Mercieca
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:53
What usually happens is that parents don't realise what's happening in the life of their daughter, or else don't care, and then, when suddenly they realise that their baby has had sex, they do their best to put the 'offender' who is no offender at all, in jail. For vengeance, to preserve what honour is left in their 'child'. Just the Mediterranean way, short of shooting him!
A. Slater
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:06
"you cannot corrupt somebody who has already been corrupted"
So that makes it OK? What kind of warped, perverted statement is that?
Miguel Micallef
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:25
Actually it's logic.
If a 13 year old girl has been having sexual relationships (as its normal to do for 13 year old girls, mind you) left right and center, then how can 1 man have 'corrupted' her?
She likes sex, that's all. Like all of you did at 13.
Maybe her parents need to do a better job at keeping an eye on her, but surely all of this is uncalled for.
Also, rape and having sex are different. From what I gather, they had sex. She wasn't raped. Maybe the news article shoule be clearer. Defile means anything, and nothing at the same time.
J. J. Borg
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:03
This is the most shameful justification of a crime that I have ever heard. The lawyer admits that the accused had sex with this thirteen year old girl but at the same he is saying that there is nothing wrong with this because she had had sex before. In other words, it's fine to rape a minor as long as someone else has done it before you.
Eugene Galea
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:44
Could someone enlighten me.
WHat is the age of consent in Malta? 13?
If not, whatever the age of the girl, what importance does the consent of the girl have?
Ramon Casha
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:44
The age of consent in Malta is 12.
A different law makes it illegal to "corrupt the morals" of a minor.
S.Xuereb
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:51
Check the law again Mr!!!
Miguel Micallef
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:07
The age of consent is 12 only in the Vatican (could it be any more obvious what they are up to hehehe?). In most of the world it is between 13 and 15. Only in Malta and a few other extremist, fundamental states it is 18. But then again, we are used to being put in the same basket as those other countries, aren't we?
Ramon Casha
Jul 2nd 2010, 16:34
@S.Xuereb: Depends on the interpretation of "defile".
Generally, the definition of "age of consent" is the age below which the consent of the minor is immaterial. That age, in Malta, is 12 in all circumstances, and 18 if it is proven that there was "defilement". The law does not state what defilement means. According to http://www.ageofconsent.com/malta.htm "it is safer to state that the age of consent in Malta is 18". A lot depends on the magistrate or judge in question.
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:43
"You cannot corrupt somebody who has already been corrupted".
Does this make any sense to anyone? The implications are monstrous and devoid of any sense redemption.
Ramon Casha
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:43
I think it's related to the fact that, in Malta, the age of consent is 12 (ie, the age before which it is illegal to have sex with that person irrespective of consent), whereas there is a different law which says it's illegal to "corrupt the morals" of a minor.
Joseph Casha
Jul 2nd 2010, 15:50
Mr Farrugia, I understand your concerns but be assured that not all children are the same. Usually, we understand and take for granted that children are innocent, in need of our protection, etc ... However, reality is daily showing us this not to be so. If you go to places frequented by these so-called 'children', you will see for yourself that their appearance is more akin to that of adults. Besides, it's not the first time that it was 'children', persons of a minor age, let's put it that wa, who started what followed after. And it's not the first time either that it was 'children' who appeared to be so adult that they were taken to be so, only to turn out later that they were of a minor age. So, think twice and thrice before condemning and judging. You, and I, don't know the intricacies and the contexts of this case.
Al Buhagiar
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:40
These stories crack me up every time, and then comes that punch line: ''The accused is not being named to defend the identity of the alleged victim.''
I think, and am sure many of the readers do too, that it is high times names are mentioned! How do you think the children of the couple who were caught with drugs in South America last week feel? They had their parents' pictures plastered all over the front page of this very news paper. Their names were everywhere too. Showing a pciture is actually even worse as the alleged culprit is therefore easily identified!
I think, that these cases are not very different to the one mentioned here above and yes, we demand to read names. Otherwise, just don't bother with the story. Seriously!
Yes? No? Anybody?