A man, reported by his estranged wife for allegedly scratching their six-year-old son during a routine two-hour access visit, was acquitted by a Magistrates’ Court. 

That report in August 2019, was one of several filed by the woman ever since the couple embarked on personal separation proceedings in 2015.

But while, as the woman herself subsequently admitted, previous complaints had always fizzled out, that report was followed up, resulting in the 36-year-old father being charged with slightly injuring the minor. 

The report was filed following a routine visit to the child's paternal grandmother’s home. The accused later explained that since he was well aware of his wife’s allegations, he would either take his son to grandma or to the playground, in full view of CCTV cameras. 

The visit lasted between 5pm and 7pm, half of that time taken up with travelling to and fro.

But while bathing the child later that evening, the mother noticed some scratches on his pelvic area, thigh and buttocks. 

The boy told her that it was his father who had allegedly pulled down his trousers while he was playing inside the bedroom, scratched him, pulled the trousers back in place and then walked out. 

Before she finished bathing him, his mother snapped photos of the injuries, telling him that those were “to show in court,” the boy later said. 

When testifying, the mother said that she had first doubted her son’s explanation, asking whether he might have been scratched by some pet animal.

But the boy insisted that it was all done by “him” [the father].

The photos were taken at 8.49pm.

At 9.54pm the injuries were certified by a doctor at the local health centre and a police report was filed. 

A district police officer and a female officer from the Vice Squad spoke to the boy in the presence of two social workers. 

That day, the child seemed more intent on playing than actually speaking about the incident.

Asked about a scratch on his face, the boy said that it was done by his brother.

But the other scratches were done by his father.

Asked if it could have been accidental, the boy insisted, “no, it was always him who did them,” repeating that claim when testifying in the criminal proceedings.

He also said that his father had once allegedly head-butted him and another time bit him, allegedly “drawing blood”.

Asked whether he played with the pets at his grandmother’s home, the boy said that only one of the cats was playful. 

Although his father had acquired hens, rabbits and ducks “thinking that he [the boy] would go to his place to have fun, [he’d] never do such thing”, the child said.

“I’ll always strive to go live with mummy forever,” the boy firmly stated. 

He also admitted that before going to testify, he had gone over the points to make sure he left nothing out and while on the way to Valletta for the hearing, he and mum had prayed to a deceased relative “to help him [the child] remember everything”.

His father, on the other hand, categorically denied the allegations, insisting that that day he had not removed his son’s clothes in any way and had seen no scratches. 

The trouble with his wife had brewed midway through the pregnancy, and since their separation he had grown accustomed to her reports, describing them as manoeuvres to deny him access to the child.

She had filed some seven applications before the Family Court, all of which had been denied.

On the day of the alleged incident, his son had sulked because he was not eager to go back to his mother, the accused said. 

'Child may have been influenced by third parties'

When delivering judgment, the court, presided over by magistrate Doreen Clarke, observed that all previous reports had no relevance in the case which concerned only one particular incident. 

The court observed that the mother had not asked her child for details as to the circumstances in which those scratches had been caused.

Moreover, although the photos were taken before the child was medically examined, the doctor subsequently testified that she did not recall seeing so many scratches, despite having examined and recorded each scratch.

Such a conflict could not be easily resolved but there was no reason to doubt the doctor’s testimony, the court said.

The only two people who could shed light on the allegations were the alleged victim and the accused, who categorically denied any wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, the most important witness, the child, could not be deemed reliable.

As would be expected of such a young child testifying about an incident that had occurred two years before, his version was marked by many inconsistencies and contradictions.

However, a more troubling factor appeared to be the fact that the child may have been influenced by third parties.

When speaking, he used grown-up expressions and also admitted that he had “studied” his testimony the night before. 

The child constantly referred to his father as “him,” the paternal grandmother as “his mother” and his maternal grandmother as his “true grandma”.

The court also observed that the family doctor had not examined the child’s injuries that day but was only told about them during a later visit.

That doctor, who had cared for the minor since birth, explained that the child was “very fidgety”, had an attention deficit, was hyperactive and had other symptoms associated with anxiety. 

But at no time did the doctor attribute that anxiety to any wrongdoing by the child’s father, putting it down instead to the family situation stemming from trouble between the parents. 

In light of all evidence, the court could not find the father guilty of the alleged offence. 

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri were defence counsel.