Jail term reduced in defilement case

The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday confirmed the conviction of a Gozitan for corrupting a minor but decreased the punishment from three years to 14 months imprisonment after taking into consideration the fact that the victim had "forgiven" the accused during the appeal proceedings.

John Buttigieg, from Qala, had been found guilty by the Gozo Court of Magistrates of having, on May 4, 1998, corrupted a 15-year old girl and of having manufactured pornographic material.

In the judgment delivered last April 27, the court had jailed Mr Buttigieg for three years.

The accused appealed on grounds that despite the fact that between him and the girl there had been libidinous acts, the girl was already corrupted and thus could not have been further corrupted by his actions.

He also appealed with regard to the charge related to the pornographic material arguing there was no proof that he was going to make a profit or distribute the pornographic material found in his possession.

Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, presiding over the Court of Criminal Appeal, took note of the fact that during the appeal proceedings the victim and her parents had filed a note renouncing criminal action against Mr Buttigieg.

The court therefore had to decide whether the criminal proceedings against Mr Buttigieg had to be extinguished because of this renunciation.

The Chief Justice noted that from the evidence it resulted that the corrupt acts did not take place in public and, therefore, in such circumstances the complaint of the injured party was required for the criminal proceedings to continue. In such cases the injured party could renounce the complaint until final judgment was delivered.

The Court of Criminal Appeal referred to article 543 (c) of the Criminal Code which says that the police could prosecute, even on an ex officio basis and without the complaint of the injured party, when the crime was committed against a person who, because of physical or mental infirmity, could not lodge such complaint. In such cases the state could intervene and proceed ex officio in the interests of the injured party.

This provision of the law, the court said, aimed at protecting people who could not be reasonably expected to file a complaint against their alleged aggressor. When this was the case, there was no need for the complaint of the injured party and even if this complaint were made and subsequently withdrawn, the criminal proceedings could still continue.

In view of the report on the victim drawn up by a psychiatric expert, who explained that the girl had serious behavioural problems with a vulnerable personality and low intelligence, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the girl had been caught in a net of mental problems making it impossible for her, even if she so wanted, to lodge a complaint with the police.

Therefore "the act of forgiving" the accused on the part of the girl and her parents, even if made years after the incident, could not extinguish the criminal proceedings against the accused.

With regard to the charge of corruption of minors, the Court of Appeal explained it was convinced that the girl had previous sexual experiences with other persons before the incident involving the accused but this did not mean that such a person could not be corrupted further by the lewd acts of the accused.

In this case, the court explained, due to her inexperience and vulnerable character, the girl had been caught in a cycle in which others could easily abuse her, with the corruption increasing more with every act of abuse.

If society did not protect such victims by means including the imposition of penal sanctions it would be grossly or even atrociously lacking, the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled.

The Court of Criminal Appeal acquitted the accused of the charge relating to the pornographic material on the basis that there was no specific intention on the part of the accused to make a profit or to distribute such material in public.

In view of the circumstances of the cases and, in particular, to the fact that the victim had forgiven the accused, the Court of Criminal Appeal also found him guilty of the charge of corruption of minors but cut the jail term from three years to 14 months.