Really, I do not know how else to describe the latest debacle which sees a man being acquitted of rape despite the existence of a tonne of evidence proclaiming that he is anything but innocent.

And what does our prosecution do when presented with incontrovertible proof that a man has raped a minor? It mishandles it all.

You'd have thought that it is practically impossible to get the details wrong when jotting down the specific location and date where the rape of a teenager happened. You'd think that the horrific description would have been burnt into the prosecuting officers' subconscious. But no. It would appear that mistaking Hamrun for Marfa is the easiest thing in the world.

You'd have also thought that sometime throughout the lengthy proceedings, the prosecution would have noticed the mistake and lost no time in correcting it. But once again, no. Which means that when the AG decided to appeal the acquittal, the case was quite rightly thrown out with a terse explanation: there is a specific time-limit throughout which to amend charges and the A.G. had failed to do so.

I say "quite rightly" not because I'm particularly keen on seeing such people walk free, but because while we may think that the law is a stubborn quadruped in reality. such provisos exist in order to ensure that the rule of law prevails. If we start making exceptions on the lines of "oh but we know he is guilty, so who cares what the law says?"...well, that doesn't augur very well for civilised society now, does it?

The A.G's office tried to weasel out of this boo-boo rather craftily, with declarations that a correction at a late stage of proceedings would have "jeopardised the whole case" because "the accused could demand to be notified once more of all the charges... they could demand that testimony be heard all over again... All this raised the risk of the case being declared time-barred..."

All the above excuses smack of "the dog ate my homework". Not to mention the fact that the mistake shouldn't have happened in the first place. What are they up to in that department? Leaving charge sheets to be filled by third year law students? Because that sure as hell is what it looks like from our end.

My question at this point is one: how often does a person holding high office have to mess things up before resignation is expected? We've already been treated to the sight of a man who kidnapped and systematically raped women being given a mere ten-year sentence because "two out of the three counts quoted by the A.G.'s office ...did not apply to this case" and because "in handing down sentence, the court ... had to stick to the articles of law quoted by the attorney general in the bill of indictment". I'm quoting the magistrate here; you can read my previous post about the issue here http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120305/blogs/the-sex-industry-crackdown-or-meltdown.409751.

That's two instances where justice appears to not have been served due to administrative errors. To use the vernacular, is it a case of fuq tlieta toqgħod il-borma?