I am instructed by the principal of the school that reported a case of cyber abuse by a former casual teacher who was eventually found guilty of the charges brought against him, to correct some misleading information published in certain sections of the media (not The Times) regarding the case in question and to set the record straight.

The facts were as follows:

1. The cyber abuse case in question happened when the person responsible was not a teacher at the school. In fact he only taught there for one term and this was in the year 2007.

2. The seven children contacted via internet were all from the senior school and none from the junior school, as has been erroneously stated or implied in certain media reports.

3. Immediately upon the school becoming aware of contact being made by this ex-teacher and a few of its students the school authorities took immediate action by informing the parents involved and held meetings with the children concerned. They did everything in their power to make sure that the abuse would be definitely stopped and the perpetrator brought to justice.

This they did by giving all the details and information to Inspector P. Caruana from the Cyber Crime Unit, and Inspector Louise Calleja from the Vice Squad, in order to ensure the arrest of the perpetrator. In fact it was thanks to the immediate action taken by the school and the police authorities that the abuse was not only stopped, but within 48 hours the man was investigated, arraigned in court and sentenced.

4. The school authorities, and this also in pursuance of its policy on internet safety for students, immediately organised a talk for all the parents and students of the school, inviting as guest speakers people from the Cyber Crime and Vice Squad Units together with a representative from Appoġġ. This talk is scheduled to be held next Tuesday.

5. The court presumably deemed fit a ban on publication of the school's name in order to make it harder for the names of the minors involved to be known. In this way it also protects those very minors' vulnerability. The ban also protects the other students of the same school from being picked on or slandered by students of other schools. It is also correct to protect the reputation of a school or institution which has done nothing wrong but only instigated and helped in the prosecution of the wrongdoer in order that he be stopped and brought to justice.

Furthermore the mantle of anonymity of the school and the children will encourage other persons or institutions to come forward to help the police in their investigations, thus helping to ensure the prosecution of paedophiles and other criminals without the fear of any negative publicity or exposure of their students and themselves.

The court decided on the ban of the name of the minors and the school in the best interest of the victims involved, the other children attending the same school and the name of the school. This the court did as a result of its experience in such matters, in order to encourage victims to come forward.