Claudia Calleja
No legal time limit on child sex abuse
Children’s Act would bring all laws under one umbrella law
Several laws need to be amended to better safeguard the rights of children.
Sexual abuse of children should not be time-barred and the law must be changed to ensure such crimes never go unpunished, a draft policy document suggests.
The National Children’s Policy, released yesterday for consultation, also recommends increasing the punishment for people found guilty of sexually abusing a child. The idea is to transmit a message of zero tolerance.
The injustice of the time-barring came to light during the court case of 11 teenage boys – now adults – who had lived in a residential home.
In August, two priests – Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis, both members of the Missionary Society of St Paul since defrocked – were sentenced to five and six years in prison respectively for sexually abusing the boys between the 1980s and 1990s. They faced a maximum nine-year jail term. Both appealed the judgement and are out on bail.
Criminal action was never taken against a third priest because the case against him was time-barred – it had happened more than 10 years before police investigations started. The injustice emerged from the fact that the abuse victims only spoke up as adults when, in 2003, one of them decided to break his silence.
The draft policy document lists a series of recommended legal amendments aimed at safeguarding children’s rights and ensuring their protection.
Recent amendments to adoption law allow a child to have a lawyer before adoption but this right is only applicable to children over 11.
The policy suggests further amendments so that the right to a child advocate has no age limit.
It also speaks about increasing the number of advocates from the present four lawyers.
Changes are also needed to the Care Orders Act to iron out inconsistencies. For example, children placed in care by their parents are being given less access to services when compared to cases where a care order is issued by the court.
The policy also recommends shifting the care and custody responsibility of a child from the Family Minister, who is a political person, to a board of professionals.
More money and resources need to be injected into the government’s support agency Appoġġ and the caseload on workers reduced. The role of the Children’s Commissioner’s office has to be strengthened and more resources provided.
The policy also suggests reconsidering the drawing up of the Children’s Act that has been in the pipeline for over a decade. The idea is to bring all laws concerning children under one umbrella law.
But the policy cautions that this may backfire as it could minimise the effectiveness of other laws that cater for children’s rights. The policy suggests that a law-by-law approach is adopted.
The policy is based on 10 main principles that include: ensuring children’s best interests, mainstreaming, well-being, participation, inclusion, accessibility, protection, families, accountability and sustainability.
Apart from the legal issues, the recommendations also delve into a range of fields that include ensuring children know their rights, introducing family-friendly measures that allow parents to spend time with children and ensuring they are provided with adequate space to play in.
The policy is open for a five-month consultation period and can be viewed on www.meef.gov.mt.
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...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
r buttigieg
Nov 12th 2011, 14:39
why on sexual abuse only? abuse could be physical and emotional too
Louise Vella
Nov 12th 2011, 13:40
This draft policy should certainly be implemented soonest possible. Child abuse should, like murder, not be time-barred. The traumatic effects of sexual abuse of children last a lifetime. It is not unusual for victims of childhood sexual abuse to wait until adulthood to come forward because of intimidation by abusers who swear young victims to secrecy or threaten violence against them or their loved ones if they reveal the abuse.
Children who have been abused only realize later on in life that what they have been through was criminal and should never have happened. As things stand, abused children find that when they finally find the courage to speak about their trauma, it is too late and no criminal action can be taken against their abuser. The removal of all statutes of limitation with regards to the sexual abuse of children is the single, most effective way to hold predators and enabling institutions accountable before the law.
The aim of this law should be clear to one and all: Children are not sex toys and are not to be messed up with. Child abusers must not be allowed to get away with it as at present. They must not run away with the idea that they escaped justice just because a long time has passed since. Predators must keep in mind that they will eventually face justice, no matter how much time has passed. So child molesters beware: Keep your hands off children because you will have to face the courts and if found guilty, hopefully spend a long time in jail. `
Mr David Borg
Nov 12th 2011, 20:32
All crimes are time barred as are all civil actions. As regards crimes, the longer the punishment, the longer is the prescription period. As regards child abuse, this period also starts running when the child becomes an adult.
Raymond Sammut
Nov 13th 2011, 00:00
@ Mr David Borg
You are generalizing and not quoting a reference. One can find the following definitions available online (businessdictionary.com):
(1) "Statute of limitations":
Legislation that sets a timeframe (limitations period) within which affected parties must take action to enforce their rights or to seek redress after a damage or injury. This period varies according to the nature of the case. Its objective is to encourage diligent prosecution of certain offenses while evidence is available and fresh, and thus ensure finality and predictability in litigation. It is generally not applicable to cases involving fraud and murder.
And for
(2) "Time bar":
Stoppage placed on the exercise of a claim, judgment, or right after passage of a certain period as established by law (such as statute of limitations) or custom.
In both cases (that is, Statute of limitation and Time Bar), applicability and duration depends on the Bill tabled and on the Legislature. You therefore cannot simply claim that "all crimes" and "all civil actions" are time barred. You simply have no basis for making such a claim.
In nature, everything is time barred. But wherever people are not deceased and evidence is still sufficiently fresh, prosecution is always possible.
This is the reason, for example, many readers of the Times of Malta often expressed concern as to why the Malta Curia keeps delaying in its so-called "Response Team" procedures.
People of decency in Malta got disgusted by procrastination from the Malta Curia and its playing for time. In the end, it was the President of Malta who had to intervene so that ordinary citizens could finally find justice in the Civil Courts.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 12th 2011, 11:21
This recommendation also makes it clear to secularist, humanist, athiest Church-haters that sexual abuse is committed by people across the social spectrum, and in far greater numbers in secular institutions and families when compared to priests.
They are only interested in focussing on the Church because it suits their anti-Catholic agendae.
Raymond Sammut
Nov 12th 2011, 13:44
Yes, Mr Cowie. Keep making your repetitive unfounded accusation that people are only interested in "focussing on the Church".
Instead of rattling your catholic sabre, Mr Cowie, you should focus on what decent people focus on; namely, defending the rights of children, youngsters and vulnerable adults from the abuse and secrecy of the church.
Whether people hate or love the church should be no business of yours. It's not against the law to hate or love the church, if that's what some people want to do.
Hating and loving are human natural instincts and can never be legislated against. But if you come here to instigate hate against those who hate the church --openly or otherwise-- then it is you who could end up in trouble with the law.
charles tabone
Nov 12th 2011, 09:40
Make laws regarding paedophiles retroactive 20 years back. You all know the reason for my suggestion! You all know who went Scot free!
Raymond Sammut
Nov 12th 2011, 10:56
In regard to Crime Law, tabling a Bill retrospectively is very difficult. The chances of such a bill passing through the legislature are virtually nil.
The reasoning here should be clear. That is, law makers cannot determine whether an act is punishable at law after the fact. To break the law, there first must be a law to break. If there was no law at the time of the crime, then you have not broken the law and the police cannot bring charges against you.
However, my understanding is that one can still be pursued in the Civil Court and sued for damages, regardless of any prevailing time-barring in the Criminal Court.
Steven Brockwell
Nov 12th 2011, 08:28
i do not know why, such a policy has taken so long to come to light.