Three men cleared of gang-raping a woman

Three men were cleared of charges related to rape and sexual assault in a case which has been ongoing for nine years.

One of the men, 31 years old from Nadur was charged with committing violent rape. Another, 46 from Xaghra and a third, 28 from Nadur were charged with attempted violent indecent assault. All three were charged with being accomplices in the woman’s rape, holding her against her will, and offending public morals.

The case involved an alleged rape which took place in Qala.

Procedures relating to this case began in 2008.

The court noted that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case, by bringing evidence forward to convince the courts of the accusations made against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defence needs to prove its case based on probability.

The alleged victim, the court said, did not remember much after her friend who was at the bar with her left. However she remembers bits and pieces.

The court also noted that the three men charged, were consistent with their story, yet the alleged victim was cloudy on the details.

Police Sergeant Edelon Spiteri said that on 19 November 2008, at 4.30am, a phone call was received at the Rabat police station, Gozo, reporting a rape.

The alleged victim had been at a bar with a friend, when the two had got into an argument. The friend was taken back home, however she says that the alleged victim did not want to leave. Later on in the evening, the friend found the alleged victim banging outside her house.

When the policeman arrived at the Nadur house, he spoke to the alleged victim’s friend and her boyfriend, who explained to him that while they were asleep, they heard the alleged victim banging on the door.

He said that his first impression when talking to the friend and the alleged victim, was that they had something to hide, as there were some inconsistencies in the versions of their statement. He said that when the alleged victim was about to give an answer, she would first look at her friend. He noted the alleged victim having some scratches on her hand, but did not see any further injuries. He did not examine her however.

The court appointed Dr Mario Scerri and Dr Marlene Attard to examine the forensic evidence.

Dr Scerri said that the alleged victim had some cuts, however these were minor injuries, not compatible with a beating or any use of violence.

“We also noted that she was drunk. She gave us one version of events and then changed it.” Dr Scerri said that at first she said it was one of the accused persons who raped her, yet later changed her version and mentioned other people, nearly forgetting about the first.

Dr Attard examined the alleged victim in the Casualty Unit, and confirmed that the majority of injuries were superficial, and that these injuries could be consistent to when someone scratches something hard. “While the patient smelled of alcohol, she was sharp and knew what was going on. The clothes she was wearing when she came to hospital were not cut,” the doctor said, “and there were no signs of any violence being used against her.”

The court said it was faced with different versions of events

The court said that it is the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt, and that the prosecution in this case abdicated its responsibility as not only did the prosecuting inspector not testify, but the prosecution did not even register any written submissions to indicate to the court how, through the evidence provided, the accused needed to be found guilty.

The court also said that inspector Josric Mifsud took statements from the men accused of the crime before they were arrested, but these were never exhibited. The court noted that witnesses were present when the statements were being taken were presented, but that even at the request of the court, the statements themselves were not produced.

The court noted that no witnesses were brought between 2011 and 2016.

The court noted that the official investigator has a responsibility to the alleged victim and those accused who have had this case dangling round their neck for nine years.

“The accused appeared genuine in their testimony, explained what happened in detail and what they said was effectively collaborated by experts nominated during the inquiry.”