Updated: AG appeals magistrate's decision to acquit priest of rape

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 21st 2011, 10:47

Some small points. The press is allowedto be present in court, except when the public is excluded on grounds of decency. This is almost a general rule in sex cases. It gives a sense of privacy to the victims.

The media has access to all documents in a civil case, but it has to follow and report proceedings in criminal matters.

Few civil cases make the headlines. Some may be more important that criminal cases, but they may not interest readers, so they are discarded as having "news value".

As press reporting is selective, and the gist of what is happening may not reflect completely the true story, people build their opinion on an incomplete picture. Sometimes there are errors in reporting. Igive you a typical example. "Magistrate acquits of attempted murder but finds slight bodily harm". People would believe the story. In actual fact, it is not the Magistrate who has dropped the charge of attempted murder, but the Attorney General who is not bound by the original charges of the police.

It is also unfortunate that sometimes charges are overloaded by the police, and this is what the press is most after. The police do it to cover all possible loopholes. In a recent case, a person was charged that he was driving under the influence of drugs. The Attorney General dropped that charge, as there was not one shred of evidence.

Mr david debattista

Aug 21st 2011, 14:56

Joe Brincat LLD I have no doubt that what you are telling me * AT TIMES IS THE TRUTH *
Thanks for your time to inform.

A. Farrugia

Aug 20th 2011, 10:20

And who is to answer your question, Mr. Debattista?
I believe Dr Brincat is saying precisely this: the COURT will answer it and not some mickey mouse blogger writing in this column possibly from the other side of the world... nor even a journalist.

What is so difficult to understand about this? We are in Malta and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's the legal principle enshrined in our constitution.

Mr david debattista

Aug 20th 2011, 13:35

Reflect on this word Mr Farrugia TRANSPARENCY ! At time it is lacking in our courts .
And that is one of the reason the court has such a bad image . OUT WITH IT, NO MORE OMERTA .
As one blogger puts it, if you rape you might get away with it, and it has happened in the past. But if you are caught with a joint ......................

A. Farrugia

Aug 20th 2011, 14:10

I'm sorry, but no,
we cannot afford to lose our trust in our highest institutions
and I, for one, continue to believe in them.

Otherwise where will we be, David?

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 14:37

Certainly I am not that presumptuous to answer your final question. But many have already given their final verdict. It is a question of fact, and you must have all the evidence before you. All and not part of it. Neither you nor I will be called to give their verdict on appeal. I have a suspicion that many who post comments, including the journalists, will be consulted !!!!!

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 08:49

I agree with you in the way you put alternative situations. You do not put yourself instead of the judges or magistrates. My point is simple. Let the courts decide according to the laws of the country.

I may have my views about what has been assumed to be a mere technicality of place. If, and I say if, there is a ground of appeal on this score in the application of the Attorney, then I hold my silence. I am not entitled to prejudge the issue and say " guilty" or "not guilty".

Our Constitution states :

39. (1) Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable t ime by an independent and impa r t i a l
court established by law."

As far as I know, the media, of all colours, hues, and what not, is not a court established by law.

We are so impatient to wait for the final verdict. It is bad to substitute our own, one way or the other.
(2) Any court or other adjudicating authority pr

Joseph Vassallo

Aug 20th 2011, 13:16

Then our constitution is also humorous?

Heh! Heh! "Within a reasonable time"?

Why isn't EVERYBODY laughing?

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 17:33

@ Mr Vassallo. Yes, you are right and the courts are being censured for delays. The worst part of it is when a person is detained in prison pending trial. This is obscene and against the Constitution.

On the other hand we cannot have the very very supersonic speedy trial of the times online, or of another other newspaper, for that matter. All judgments are very speedy, but not by courts established by law.

Joseph Vassallo

Aug 20th 2011, 20:39

You got my point with just one try Dr Brincat; your second sentence says it all.

I also agree with you on trial by media or, even worse, by lynching mobs. I addressed an item to you that I thought would be of pertinent interest but the moderators in their wisdom did not reproduce it. It seems they are being extremely selective what they print but at the same time not enough; I'm sure you understand what I mean.

It seems to me that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I want to thank you for all your time that you are dedicating to this subject; thank you most sincerely.

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 08:57

A case from Sweden and how they deal with the sub judice rule This was reported in the Guardian 9/11/10

"The suspect, who the Swedish prosecutor has said must remain unnamed, was arrested at his Malmö apartment over the weekend. Police said he denied the allegations."

and it continues :

"At a press conference in Malmö, Commissioner Borje Sjoholm refused to answer questions on the progress of the inquiry, citing sub judice rules. Formal charges are not expected until the new year. The prosecutor said the six charges the man faces could multiply as the investigation continues."

Would your comment, especially the first part, be published in a Swedish newspaper ?

Gustav Svensson

Aug 20th 2011, 11:00

I think it's very good what you publish the names and faces of offenders in Malta, you are correct that that would not have happended in Sweden. However I think these child molesters would have been brought to justice at a much earlier stage, with more thourough investigations carried out..and probably with a few more years behind bars. For me it's totally unacceptable that the Church have not reacted quicker to bring these molesters to justice...

Gustav Svensson

Aug 20th 2011, 11:09

Also I would like to mention in Sweden priests are allowed to get married. Not to be allowed to have a partner does not seem to be natural..

Tony Borg

Aug 20th 2011, 08:42

Proset, sewwa qed tghid !!!!!!!!!!

G Buhagiar

Aug 20th 2011, 11:30

Sewwa ghidt naqbel ma' dak li ghidt! U din x'kummiedja hi? Dawn meta ha jressquhom fil-Qorti tal-Appell?? Kienu jilhqu jmorru safra u jigu! Qeghdin sew f'dan il-pajjiz, dawn il-kummiedji ma jsirux barra minn Malta. Appellaw il-kaz u iktar qed ikomplu juru kemm huma nies bla ebda dicenza!

Il-Papa li f'dak li jghid huwa infallibbli kien jaf x'qed jaghmel meta nehha lil Charles Pulis minn sacerdot, u wara 8 snin il-Qorti sabithom hatja ghax kien hemm hafna provi. Kif jibqghu jichdu! Il-veru nies bla kuxjenza, accettaw is-sentenza u indmu minn dak li ghamiltu, ghax hemm Imhallef iehor li huwa l-akbar fost l-Imhallfin tad-dinja kollha u li suppost lit-tfal ressaqtuhom Lejh u mhux fixkiltuhom!

Adele Mintoff

Aug 20th 2011, 11:41

WELL SAID !!!! This is the only comment that makes sense so far.

Mr Ernest Vella

Aug 20th 2011, 00:49

Abusing a child = horrific...but the same we call abortion = a genocide of innocent children.

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 01:02

Your concept of democracy is contradictory. First you say that it is a good thing that there is an appeal. At the end you incite to immense outcry, anger, frustration and passion of the Maltese.

That type of justice which you advocate is the negation of the democratic process itself. One of the pillars of democracy is the independence of the judiciary.

J. Schembri

Aug 19th 2011, 22:07

Dr Brincat , what you’re saying is not music for some people’s ears , so we won’t be reading your version.
I find this case to be like media lynching , where the media presents what’s sensational and puts aside other relevant facts.

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Aug 19th 2011, 22:54

I wonder what inference a normal man would draw from the last two words "kif dedotta" of what brilliant Brincat quotes, which words I take to mean "as set out".

Mr Lawrence Fenech

Aug 20th 2011, 01:10

Kappell ma jmejjilx iehor.

Joe Brincat-LL.D

Aug 20th 2011, 01:17

The matter is sub judice, as an appeal has been entered.

"In Australia the sub judice rule is taking very seriously and rigorously by the courts. The same applies for anything that could be perceived as working against having a fair trial for the accused.

Recently a well known broadcaster was gagged for 5 months and subjected to house arrest for the same period because he made public the names of 2 priests who were accused of child abuse because he held that they should be named and shamed. He did not get a jail sentence because had just have a liver transplant.

These rules may differ in detail between the various states but everywhere they are strictly guarded and policed." (posted by Richard Curmi living in Australia under the blog of Fr Joe Borg.)

I say no more.

C Muscat

Aug 20th 2011, 03:20

Grazzi tal-kontribut professjonali tieghek. Ma nistax nifhem kif jekk ikun hemm zball bhal dan imsemmi fil-gazetti, li kif jista' jghid kull min hu midhla tal-gustizzja jaf li kull tip ta' nuqqas ta' qbil ifisser dubju fondat irrid nkunu magistrati aktaru aqwa mill-magistrat. Disgrazzjatament tant ghamilniehom sensazzjonali dawn l-akkuzi tal-qassisin (jien nghid li dak li miet gie maqtul qabel iz-zmien bl-inkwiet) li l-gustizzja proprja qatt ma ser tkun nadifa.
Bhal dejjem jien nikkundanna kull tip ta abuz jigi mnejn jigi.

Mr Kurt Waschnig

Aug 20th 2011, 08:56

Dear Mr Joe Brincat, I appreciate your comments a lot. Thank you.

I mean the coverage of clerical child abuse in various newspapers and the outcry of the public against clerical child abuse in Malta and the determination of the Vatican’s sex crime chief prosecutor to personally intervene to speed up justice for the victims embroiled in the St Joseph Home scandal put pressure on the Church and Curia to hold talks with the lawyer of the victims to grant monetary compensation.

And you are right one of the pillars of democracy is the independence of the judiciary.

I did not say that the judiciary acted because of the outcry of the public I am sure the judiciary is independent and applies only the criminal law.



Best regards



Kurt

Rob Camper

Aug 19th 2011, 22:10

Yes Louise there is......its called lynching!!!!