The magistrate who convicted two priests of child abuse was yesterday accused of having been selective in his appreciation of evidence by trying to discredit the men and making sure they were found guilty.
Defence lawyer Joseph Giglio questioned how Magistrate Saviour Demicoli could be morally convinced of the men’s guilt when the victims were contradictory and inconsistent in their testimony.
On the other hand, the lawyer from the Attorney General’s Office, Phillip Galea Farrugia, said that it was precisely the discrepancies that made the victims so believable.
The 11 boys had been subjected to abuse every day, 18 years before they testified, so it was obvious that they could not remember every single detail but rather the substance of what they were put through, Dr Galea Farrugia said.
The victims, who were then aged between 13 and 16, were resident at the St Joseph Home in St Venera when the abuse took place.
The two men were making their submissions on the appeals filed by the two priests, Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis, both members of the Missionary Society of St Paul, who were sentenced to five and six years in prison respectively for the sexual abuse.
A third member of the same Order, Bro. Joseph Bonnett, who had been facing the same charges, passed away two years ago.
The sitting carried on from another on Friday which went ahead despite there being a bomb threat made at the court house.
Coincidentally, 10 minutes before the sitting went ahead yesterday, another bomb threat was made. Judge David Scicluna expressed his worry and said that he did not want to put people’s lives at risk, to which Dr Giglio thanked him for the concern and added that everyone who remained in court was taking responsibility for their own lives and he preferred to continue.
The judge said that bomb threats seemed to happen every time there was a sitting and he suspected that someone who had testified in this case might be to blame.
As the sitting got under way, Dr Giglio pointed out that, while one victim claimed that Mr Scerri had been one of his carers, this was not true because he was never in charge of any boys in care.
He said that he found it strange how Magistrate Demicoli could believe the victim about the abuse and find Mr Scerri guilty, and in the same breath acquit the priest of having committed the crime when he was the child’s guardian.
The magistrate had to take the evidence in its totality and not in part only. One of the victims claimed that the priest would go into the dormitory to either quieten down the boys or to abuse them.
He would correct boys who were being naughty and at the same time touch others intimately, which in his opinion, the lawyer said, was not plausible.
The same witness alleged that he was touched by Bro Bonnett while swimming in the sea when it resulted that Bro Bonnett did not know how to swim.
In another display of being selective in the evidence appreciated, the magistrate used Mr Scerri’s passport as proof that he was on the island when the abuse took place, when Mr Scerri denied he was on the island, Dr Giglio said.
The magistrate justified his position by saying that since there were two departure stamps on the passport, common sense dictated that he must have been on the island. On a closer inspection between those two dates he was also in another four countries during the period the victim claimed he was abused.
Referring to the testimony of another witness, the lawyer said the man had told the court he had tried to tell his social worker, when still a boy, about being sexually abused but she refused to listen to what he had to say. When the social worker testified, she categorically denied having refused to listen to him and said that he told her the opposite and was very happy at the home with the priests.
In rebuttal, the AG’s lawyer Dr Galea Farrugia said that the defence counsel had launched a personal and “ferocious” attack on the only victim to come forward, Lawrence Grech, adding that the allegations made against the magistrate could almost be defined as contempt.
He said that it was no secret there were discrepancies but that was obvious considering that the victims had testified 18 years after the crime. He added that it was also understandable how the victims could not remember precise details because it happened so often, so what was left were general details.
The appeal continues next month when television presenter Lou Bondí is meant to testify about a number of blog posts he had written concerning Mr Grech.