A court has acquitted a 52-year-old man from Victoria of defiling and threatening his 15-year-old daughter in a Marsalforn apartment in 2005, at the time when he was in the process of separating from his wife.

The victim claimed her father had defiled her on three occasions. The first time was when he applied ointment on her chest as she was sick, the second when he touched her thigh while examining a rash on her lower back.  The 15-year-old also claimed her father used to leave the bathroom door ajar while having a shower, and that once he asked her to get him his underwear while naked.

In its decision, the court, presided by Magistrate Joe Mifsud, said it was shameful that acts of love and respect by both parents were being misinterpreted as lust.

“We would have reached a stage when a parent would no longer feel at ease hugging and giving a bath to infants and young children or look after then when they are sick, for fear of being accused of defilement.”

The court also expressed its sorrow that a priest who tried to give advice ended up being targeted by one of the parties “who tried to score points”.

The priest, the court said, should have never been asked to testify in this case. Magistrate Mifsud pointed out that there had even been an attempt by the injured party to involve the late Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Mercieca, who had met this priest.

The court lamented about the length of proceedings, particularly because the case only started to be heard in 2010, five years after the allegations were made.

Magistrate Mifsud pointed out that the case had been heard by another court so he was not in a position to listen to the testimony as it was being given and evaluate the behaviour of the witnesses.

The court heard that the allegations came to light when police Inspector Josric Mifsud was investigating a complaint filed by the defendant’s wife who claimed her husband was threatening her.

Defendant consistent throughout and his conduct indicates his version of events is credible- Court

It transpired that during court proceedings, Insp. Mifsud was replaced but the police authorities were not forthcoming when the court asked for the reason behind the decision, citing a provision of the Freedom of Information Act.

The court heard that in December 2009 the girl had received an unsigned letter of apology produced with a typewriter, in which the author claimed to be her father.

However, the defendant denied ever sending such correspondence.

While the girl had initially said that she learnt about the letter from a text message from her father, she later changed her version to say she saw her father posting the letter.

This led the court to express doubts about her credibility as well as to the existence of the letter, which was only mentioned at an advanced stage of the proceedings.

The court noted that there was conflicting evidence and that the prosecution had not brought sufficient evidence to prove the charges.

On the other hand, it remarked that the defendant was consistent throughout and that his conduct indicated that his version of events was credible.  

Lawyer Kathleen Grima was defence counsel while police inspector Bernard Charles Spiteri prosecuted.