The father of a child accused of sexually abusing his eight-year old daughter has had his acquittal confirmed on appeal.

The man’s ordeal kicked off in April 2016 when an LSA watching over the child during school hours expressed concerns about the girl’s behaviour.

The child, who has Down Syndrome, was reportedly putting her hands inside her trousers and had tried to place a plastic cone inside her private parts during a PE lesson.

Her teacher’s concern grew when one day the girl began to cry, crouched down in pain, pointed to her private parts and insisted that she wanted to go home to her mother.

LSAs who witnessed the scene initially attributed the incident to constipation pain, but later referred the matter to the school head.

Alarm bells went off when the girl told the headmistress that “A (a common male name and also the name of her father) has inserted a sword inside me”.

A children’s services doctor was contacted and the school counsellor was also called in. The latter reccomended that the matter be referred to Appoġġ officers who, after talking to the girl, called in the police vice squad.

The girl’s father had immediately denied suspicions when questioned by the police, declaring that the child had no knowledge of “anything to do with sex”. That evening, the man was referred to hospital for medical attention after complaining to investigators of chest pains.

The father was eventually charged with engaging in sexual acts with 0and defilement of the minor.

He was cleared of all criminal liability in October last year, but the Attorney General appealed that decision.

The AG argued that although experts had assessed the child as having the cognitive ability of a two-year-old, the girl had promptly answered “yes” when asked by the magistrate whether she understood the full meaning of a “pinky promise”, who had then proceeded to hear her testimony via video conference.

It was only later, after hearing the reports of expert psychologists, that the magistrate had apparently changed her mind, declaring the child’s testimony as inadmissible evidence against the accused.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, observed that the first court had clearly “met with great difficulties” when trying to elicit answers to questions put to the young girl.

Transcripts of that testimony as well as recording of the video conference clearly showed that the girl “sometimes answered in one way and at other times answered differently”.

Both the defence and the prosecution had agreed to appoint two expert psychiatrists to help the child psychologist assess the girl.

The experts had highlighted the “many cognitive problems” of the child, which rendered her open to suggestions. She had a tendency to repeat what she heard or saw, had difficulty in making sense of the world around her and also in communicating with others.

The experts certified that the girl had the cognitive ability of a two-year old and could not grasp the consequences of not telling the truth.

In light of such evidence and expert conclusions, Madam Justice Scerri Herrera confirmed the decision of the Magistrates’ Court, declaring that the girl was not a competent and admissible witness.

The court noted further that the girl had not even identified the accused while testifying via video conference and had identified the police inspector as another police officer whom she referred to by name.

Neither could she tell who ‘A’ was, answering first “yes” then “no” when asked whether he was a school friend.

Although experts had reported that the child could have been exposed to “behaviour and language not suited to her age,” this in no way meant that the prosecution had proved its case, the court concluded, rejecting the appeal and confirming the acquittal.

The court banned publication of all names, including the name of the girl’s school.

Lawyers Giannella de Marco and Stephen Tonna Lowell were defence counsel.