A man has been acquitted of raping his former girlfriend after a court found that prosecutors had failed to prove that the sexual encounter was non-consensual.  

The trial was held behind closed doors this week, with the case dating back to 2019. 

The two had met as students. They reconnected years later and the two began a short-lived relationship. 

The woman told police that problems soon arose. He took out his anger on her, she said, and sex was always violent to the point of making her bleed. 

She said that she decided to end things after around three months. They met in Valletta and had a break-up conversation. 

As they were heading home, the accused asked the woman to join him for a meal at a fast-food restaurant in Qormi. 

The prosecution argued that this was a ploy to get the woman into his car and rape her, because, they said, he only saw her as an outlet for his sexual frustration. 

The woman alleged that he forced himself onto her in the car, after they had eaten their food. 

She said he penetrated her with his fingers, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop as she began to cry. 

After he took her home, she spoke with a friend about what had happened and decided to report the incident to the police. 

He was accused of raping the woman, with the prosecution initially asking the court for a prison sentence between nine to 30 years should he be found guilty. 

This was later revised to a request for a sentence between four and 20 years, to reflect more recent changes in legislation. 

The trial started on Tuesday, with the court delivering judgement on Saturday morning. 

The defence insisted throughout proceedings that the sexual encounter was consensual and that the way the woman had described the accused was highly out of character.

The court heard from friends of the accused, including his ex-wife, all of whom testified that he was a calm and kind man, if not somewhat naive but always dependable. 

Police investigation criticised

In her judgement, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera criticised the police investigation into the case, notably miscommunication that led to a police report being filed two days after the incident occurred and subsequently the failure to open a magisterial inquiry to preserve evidence.

The judge observed that while the accused never denied that this sexual encounter occurred between them, he maintained that it was consensual.

While the woman had tried to paint a picture of the accused as a man obsessed with violent sex, it was she who had introduced violence to their sex life, she said, with the court noting one message where the man told the woman they should hold off from sex for a month after the woman told him she had bled after a sexual encounter. 

Meanwhile, the accused’s character witnesses all maintained that these elements were foreign to him, with his ex-wife noting that he had never asked her for such activities and that she would not have permitted them if he had. 

The court was not convinced that the incident was not consensual, particularly as evidence pointed to the fact that the woman was still in love with the accused, despite having called things off between them. 

Her personal history also showed that the woman was not well-equipped to handle breakups, with the court observing that she found the woman’s character to be “impulsive and emotional”. 

“The court is not satisfied that this accusation has been sufficiently proven, because while the prosecution did not succeed in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defence, which is not obliged to bring forward any proof, has managed through its witnesses to present a reasonable doubt,” the court said. 

Judge Scerri Herrera instead found the man guilty of the lesser charge of offending public morals for performing a sexual act in public and sentenced him to a two-week prison sentence, suspended for one year. 

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri appeared for the accused.