A man awaiting trial for sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl will have the statement he gave the police during his interrogation read out to jurors after a panel of three judges reversed a previous decision to have it deleted from the case file.
The judges, presiding over the Court of Criminal Appeal, ruled that they could not determine at this stage whether the disclosure of the statement could potentially infringe Christoph Doll’s right to a fair hearing.
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Edwina Grima and Aaron Bugeja were ruling on an appeal filed by the attorney general who sought to reverse a decision by the Criminal Court which had declared as inadmissible the eight-page statement released by Doll to the police.
The statement had been taken without the presence of a lawyer but after the accused had spoken to the lawyer of his choice – Giannella de Marco – as the law stood at the time.
Doll stands accused of sexually abusing the 11-year-old family acquaintance in 2014 and 2015 when he was 31.
He is also accused of participating in sexual activities with the girl, defiling her, misusing equipment to obtain indecent images of her and possession of child pornography.
The court heard how the girl had met the accused at a party to which she attended together with her family. He became a very trusted friend of her family and particularly of the minor who had even added him as her Facebook friend. The two first started communicating by means of Facebook Messenger where after a while the content of these conversations became of a sexual nature.
She told the court that on one occasion, while communicating on Messenger, he invited her to his house in Rabat. Being a trusted family friend, her mother used to allow her to go to his house. The matter came to light when the girl opened up to her mother.
When Doll was arrested by the police following a police report filed by the mother and her daughter, he released a statement after having been informed of his rights, including his right to remain silent, and the interrogation took place after he had the opportunity to consult his lawyer.
Also accused of participating in sexual activities with the girl
In his statement, the accused denied any wrongdoing. He replied to certain questions while he chose to deny or else not to reply to others. This indicates he understood the caution which was given to him by the interrogating officer and exercised his rights of defence at this early stage, the court noted.
Last year, Doll successfully argued in court in his pre-trial pleas that his statement released in the absence of his lawyer was detrimental to his right to a fair hearing.
Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera upheld his arguments and ordered its removal from the acts of the case.
But the attorney general filed an appeal, arguing that the accused had been given the full rights as they stood at the time and that various court decisions on the matter ruled that the absence of the lawyer during the interrogation did not lead to an automatic breach of rights.
The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with these arguments, relying also on decisions by the European Court of Human Rights on the subject. The ECHR directed domestic courts to decide the matter on a case-by-case basis after having found no breach of human rights in a similar case.
It said it could not agree with the first court which declared the statement as “inadmissible in terms of law”, despite it having been released in line with the law prevailing at the time.
Moreover, the court could not determine the overall fairness of the entire judicial process at this early stage, when the trial by jury has not yet taken place.
The judges said the jurors will be guided by the presiding judge on the probative value of the statement should the judge deem that such evidence may compromise the overall fairness of the proceedings.
In addition, the accused could exercise his right of appeal from an eventual guilty verdict in his regard, they said, as they ordered that the statement be re-inserted as evidence.