Yes I'm going to write about the Church's sex abuse scandal again.

Yes I'm sort of happy with the verdict, but not ecstatic.

And yes, of course, I still have something to say about it...

Back in 2009, when the story first hit the headlines, everybody felt sickened with the fact that the case had been sitting on its loins for seven long years. The victims were tired of waiting and disgusting details started to emerge from different sources. Just days before the Pope's visit in April 2010, everyone started shuffling and spinning their own take on the matter.

Bets were placed on whether The Pope would take time out of His busy schedule to meet the victims, and the stakes were that even if he did meet them, an apology was highly unlikely. But it wasn't, The Pope met the victims during the last few hours of his visit and apologised profusely.

It then took another couple of years, endless media pressure, and probably thousands of Euro later, for the case to be concluded. And now, with a prison sentence looming over their heads, the accused have appealed their case. As expected, the defence will once again question the credibility of the victims; it will try to instill doubt in their testimony by pointing out inconsistencies in their stories, and given that the crime happened so many years ago, this will probably not be too hard to do.

Then there's the issue of the mistake on the charge sheet for which most are singlehandedly blaming the AG. Most are also blaming the AG for dragging the case for so long, however, as much as I too would like to blame the institution for this, if one looks closely at the proceedings, it is clear that the AG, made its case within a few months from when the police first arraigned the accused.

In its statement to the press the AG explained how the police arraigned the accused on October 13, 2003, the first court sitting was held on October 28, 2003 (that's only 15 days), and how seven months later, on April 15, 2004, the case started being heard. Less than a month after that, on May 5, 2004, the prosecution concluded its case and the defence took over from there. It then took the defence seven years, during which, at one point, it also managed to impose a media ban on the case. The courts usually only consider this to protect the victims of such crimes, which clearly was not the case here because the victims were livid at this decision. Then, finally, on March 9, 2011 the defence declared that it had no further evidence to present, and sentencing happened last week.

This exhausting dragging was to be expected of course, and had I to be in the accused's shoes, I too would want none other but the likes of Gianella Caruana Curran to defend me. Whether I could afford her services would be another issue of course, since in my case, I doubt that the Church would come forth with an open cheque as it did for members of her clan.

Let's face it, that's one hell of a defence lawyer who, despite all the incriminating evidence and witnesses, despite the many police statements in which the accused practically incriminated themselves, despite the media and social pressure to conclude the case quickly, somehow, whilst still staying within the remits of the law, thus making it impossible for the courts to object, managed to drag the case for eight long years. 

I am also ready to bet my last dollar that unlike the AG, the police, and the victim's lawyer, GCC and her team had long picked up on the mistake that was on the charge sheet. This silly mistake which spared Godwin Scerri an additional four or five years in prison was there from the start, way back when the AG was making its case in 2004, and yet, in so many years, no one picked it up, not even the counsel who had the victims' interest so much at heart that he didn't charge them a cent for his services.

In its statement to the press, the AG said that it would have been too dangerous to point out the mistake at such a late stage in the case, but the lawyers that I spoke to are of the opinion that had the mistake been picked up at all, someone (except for the defence of course), would have pointed it out to the court.

If someone on the prosecution's side had noticed it, it would have been brought to the attention of the court, no matter what stage the case had arrived to.

Perhaps the Magistrate should have overlooked the detail of where the rape took place and sentenced according to the crime in question. After all, Magistrate Demicoli said that the victims' testimony was credible and that the court believes that the rape did take place, but had the Magistrate done so, had the Magistrate ignored the mistake on the charge sheet, the defence would have had an even stronger case in their appeal.

What's more, had The Magistrate overlooked this detail, the blame game that is now being played amongst The AG, the police and lawyers would have also embroiled Magistrate Demicoli, portraying the courts as a bigger circus than they already are.

So now we wait! We wait with bated breath for the appeal to be heard. According to normal procedures it shouldn't take longer than a few months to be concluded, but who knows what legal hoops will be brought out of the closet this time? If a simple human mistake such as the one committed on the charge sheet, can spare a man four years in prison, then I wouldn't be surprised if more inane legal loopholes exist to get them off completely.