An elderly man was jailed for four years for defiling his four-year-old granddaughter after his version was not deemed credible by a magistrate who noted further that he had “failed in his duty” by “taking advantage of the child’s tender age.”

The abuse came to light when the girl finally opened up about the “secret” that had long tormented her.

One day, while on a family trip abroad with her parents, brother and other relatives, the girl confided in her father about how her paternal grandfather used to make indecent sexual advances in her regard.

The incidents had taken place at her grandparents’ home on some 10 occasions.

Describing the acts in childish language, the girl described how her grandfather would touch his private parts against hers, even insisting when she backed off and said “no.”

The girl’s mother was so “disgusted” by her daughter’s account that she first left the room in tears, then once she calmed down, she called Appoġġ.

The alleged abuse was reported to the police and the suspect was subsequently charged with violent indecent assault, sexual acts with the minor and defilement.

He protested his innocence and also testified in his own case, bringing up a solitary incident which allegedly happened one day when the girl allegedly entered the bathroom while he was in the shower.

He insisted that the girl was prone to certain “fantasies” and said she was “a normal child” but “spoilt.”

The girl’s parents also testified.

The mother said that around the same time as the alleged abuse, her daughter would wake up at night, crying and shouting.

Her behaviour at school also baffled teachers, since the girl would cry and kick up a fuss for no apparent reason.

Once she opened up about her “secret”, her behaviour changed to normal.

The girl had often spoken about a “secret” but always refused to tell anyone about it, the court was told.

During the proceedings, Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit held an on-site visit at the residence where the alleged abuse took place.

After hearing all testimonies, the court observed that the accused had focused solely on the shower incident which he voluntarily brought up, depicting himself as a “saint”.

He even stressed that he refused to accompany the child to the toilet, leaving it to his wife instead.

But when all was considered the court concluded that it “did not have the slightest doubt as to whose version was most credible.”

The shower incident was “false”, said the court.

The accused tried to cast a shadow upon his granddaughter’s character, saying that she harboured certain “fantasies”.

The court declared him guilty as charged and condemned him to a four-year effective jail term because of the gravity of the crime.

The accused was also placed under a two-year treatment order.

He had failed “in his duty towards his granddaughter and instead of caring for her he took advantage of her tender age and defiled her,” observed the court.

 All parties and witnesses’ names were omitted from the judgment.

Inspector Joseph Busuttil prosecuted.