An ice-cream vendor who was facing the prospect of a year and a half behind bars for having defiled four young girls 12 summers ago, had his punishment converted to a suspended sentence by a court of appeal.

The man, whose identity is not to be revealed under court order, was selling ice-creams from his kiosk in Delimara one August afternoon in 2004, when two young girls came up to him, requesting a free chocolate ice-cream.

The vendor handed over the ice creams, believing that some adult relative of the girls would call later to foot the bill. However, soon after another two underage female customers turned up with a similar request, giggling and poking fun at the man.

Since the vendor was serving other customers, he irritably told the girls to go away, adding "I'll tell you what I'll give you" allegedly touching his private parts.

Shortly after, a woman claiming to be the carer of the four children, approached the vendor confronting him about his allegedly "inappropriate" behaviour. The man strongly denied such allegation.

A police report after the incident led to the man's arrest and ultimately to his conviction before a magistrate's court which, eight years after the alleged incident, declared the man guilty of defilement of the four minors and condemned him to a jail term of one year and a half.

The court of appeal, presided by Mr Justice David Scicluna, noted that there were many inconsistencies in the testimonies given by the four girls, who were 12 and 14 year olds at the time. On several occasions, there were self-contradictory statements which the first court had apparently not considered.

One girl had said that the man had pulled down his shorts, but another had said that the man had touched his private parts without removing his clothes.

The victims had also alleged that at the time of the incident there was no-one around. Bearing in mind that the episode took place on an August afternoon, at a popular seaside resort frequented by locals and tourists, the court questioned the veracity of the girls' declaration.

On the other hand, the court observed that the vendor had denied the accusations not only when confronted by the minors' carer but also under police interrogation and subsequently before the magistrate's court.

It was noted that the minors, in spite of their tender age, all had prior sexual experiences and were at the time residing at a state institution on account of their troubled family backgrounds.

The court concluded that the alleged act of defilement was merely a "fleeting gesture" of provoked by the girls' second request for 'free' ice-creams. There was clearly no 'lustful intention' behind the act, the court declared.

The court therefore revoked the first judgment by declaring the accused not guilty of defilement but guilty of violent indecent assault.

Bearing in mind the man's relatively clean criminal record sheet, save for two breaches of food hygiene regulations in 1992 and 1994, the court changed the effective jail term to a 5 month prison term suspended for two years.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri were defence counsel.