A man accused of defiling his girlfriend’s nieces was cleared by a court that was not “morally convinced” about the alleged victims’ story. 

The incident dates back to over 12 years ago when the two girls were aged four and five years old.

When handing down judgment, the court observed that the source of the story was unknown but if made up by the girls, the court could not condemn them but hoped that their parents and those entrusted with their mental health “would take care of their wellbeing.”

One of the girls first opened up about the alleged sexual ordeal years later at the age of seventeen, explaining that she was encouraged to do so after hearing about a case of sexual abuse by priests in Gozo. 

She had locked herself in the school toilets one day and when she emerged her friend realized that she had been crying. 

But when her friend asked what was the matter, the girl did not divulge her story.

On another occasion, when her friend’s mother called for the girls at school, the alleged victim finally revealed her secret. 

Her friend’s mother urged her to tell her mum. But the girl refused, pleading with her friend and her mother not to tell anyone. 

Then one day, after hearing about the sexual abuse case in Gozo, the girl discussed the matter with her sister and the two finally decided to tell their mother about the abuse they had allegedly suffered at the hands of their aunt’s former boyfriend. 

The two siblings, then aged four and five, used to go to their grandparents’ home after school, until their father would call for them. 

Recounting the events in retrospect, the girls claimed that the accused would call them to his room. The man was staying with his girlfriend’s parents at the time while the couple were saving up for a home of their own. 

Sitting on a lower bunk bed, he would offer to read out stories and handed the girls sweet treats. 

The older sibling was allegedly targeted first by the man who would force her to perform oral sex and other sexual acts, while her mother and grandma were in the kitchen nearby. 

Then one day, the younger girl walked past the bedroom and allegedly caught sight of her sister with the accused. He offered her sweets to buy her silence.

From then on, she too fell victim to the man’s abuse, the alleged victims claimed. 

They also alleged that the accused would show them cartoon videos and porn on his mobile phone. 

The alleged abuse continued until their aunt and her “creepy” boyfriend broke up. 

The girls’ story triggered criminal charges against the man for allegedly defiling the under-12 minors, forcing them to engage in and witness sexual activity. He protested his innocence. 

The girls’ aunt testified that throughout her eight-year relationship with the accused, she had never experienced any wrong behaviour in her regard as well as in respect of her nieces. 

A court-appointed psychiatrist and child psychologist said that they could not understand how four adults at the residence at the time of the alleged abuse, never chanced past that room and sensed something wrong. 

Although the alleged victims appeared to be “numb” in respect of their alleged ordeal, the experts could not exclude that the alleged abuse had taken place. 

A social worker at the Victims Support Unit said that one of the girls suffered blackouts since she was nine years old. 

Another therapist said that the girl suffered from anxiety, had symptoms of anger issues and was prone to overthinking. 

The accused chose not to testify but the court examined his statement to the police. 

The man had admitted that he was unhappy while living with his then-girlfriend’s parents. Their home was small, lacking privacy and very noisy when the girls were around. 

He used to offer them sweets to “get rid of them.” 

The girls claimed that the abuse took place inside a room which totally lacked privacy. It did not even have a door and was right in the middle of a busy corridor.

The girls’ grandmother, mother and aunt were often present when the abuse allegedly occurred and their grandpa would watch television in a nearby room. 

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit held an on-site visit at the residence to clearly understand the layout. 

When delivering judgment, the court took note of the doubt voiced by the experts in the early stages of the case. 

The court also questioned how other family members had never caught the accused in the act. 

The alleged ordeal had apparently caused no “emotional impact” upon the girls. Their mother never sensed anything wrong and their progress at school was normal. 

One of the girls’ anxiety and panic attacks started after she divulged her story about the accused, not before. 

They said nothing about their parents’ separation which happened around the same time as the alleged abuse. The court questioned whether that might have triggered the whole story. 

The girl’s friend later testified that the alleged victim was not crying at school but simply appeared to be “slightly down.” 

When all was considered the court declared that it was not morally convinced of the girls’ version.

The source of their story was unknown and the court could not blame any one of the protagonists. 

However if the story was made up by the girls, the court could not condemn them but simply expressed hope that their parents and those entrusted to look after their mental health would “take care of their wellbeing.”

The accused, whose name was banned by the court, was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing.

Lawyer Jason Grima was defence counsel.