An appeals court has ordered the retrial of a man who admitted sexually abusing his four nieces after it found that the first court erroneously waived criminal responsibility because the accused had the mental age of a minor.

Madam Justice Edwina Grima ruled that the magistrate’s court should never have declared that the 29-year-old accused was not criminally responsible for his actions, as the law on criminal responsibility refers to physical not mental age.

The man was charged with sexually abusing, defiling and participating in sexual activities with his nieces in 2012, when they were all under 12 years of age.

He admitted to the charges during the arraignment and confirmed his admission in a subsequent sitting. He had also admitted to the crimes during police interrogation as well as releasing a statement to this effect.

Experts reported the accused had the intellect of a 12-year-old

However, the magistrate ordered a pre-sentencing report after the defence raised doubts about the man’s mental stability. The magistrate also ordered that the statement be deleted from the case file since it was taken before the man had spoken to a lawyer of his choice. A panel of experts appointed by the magistrate reported that the accused had the intellect of a 12-year-old.

Psychiatrists concluded the abuse did take place

This prompted the magistrate to dismiss the case on the basis of a provision in the law which says that a minor under 16 is exempt from criminal responsibility for any act or omission done without any mischievous discretion.

The Attorney General appealed the decision, handed down in November last year, arguing that the accused was 29 years old when the abuse occurred so he could not benefit from this provision as he could never be considered a minor. Neither could he be considered to have been in a state of insanity at the time of the crime.

Presiding over the Criminal Appeals Court, Madam Justice Grima noted that the accused, whose name has been banned from publication, denied his involvement in the sexual abuse to his probation officer. However, psychiatrists appointed to interview the four nieces concluded the abuse did take place.

Madam Justice Grima noted that the first court had concluded the man had an intellectual disability while experts had told the court he “was not suffering from any acute mental illness and was coping well in society”.

She ruled that the first court could have never reached the conclusions it did, especially since the law referred to a person’s physical not mental age.

She annulled the judgment and sent the case back to the Magistrates’ Court to be heard from scratch.