'Strict disciplinarian' cleared of sex charges after daughter admits she lied

A man has been acquitted of defiling a young daughter and subjecting another to physical intimacy after one of the girls retracted her testimony and admitted it was a lie.

The Birkirkara man, a father of four, had been accused of defiling his then 13-year-old daughter, committing non-consensual sexual acts on her, subjecting another daughter to physical intimacy, and assaulting, threatening and insulting them.

He was also accused of causing his wife fear that violence would be used against her. The man denied the charges.

One of the girls had described a strained relationship with her older brother and father, and a good relationship with her mother. She told the court that the accused tried to touch her breasts while she was on the bed and invited her to shower with him.

The girl also testified about a separate incident when she and her sister were at the skatepark. Their father drove by, stopped and hit them. According to the younger girl they were not allowed to leave the house, while their mother afforded them more freedom. 

One of the girls claimed that her father punched her sister, and pushed her. The alleged assault only stopped when their older brother intervened. There was another time when he allegedly hit her for taking too long to use the bathroom.

She could not recall whether the skatepark incident happened because the father found them outside after 11pm.

The other sister, who was allegedly 15, at the time of the offences similarly confirmed having a strained relationship with her father, who demanded she help him with his work. She claimed that he tried to sexually abuse her. 

On the skatepark incident, the girl said the accused had only hit her but not her sister.

The man’s wife also took the stand, saying that they had been married for 18 years. She testified that he recently became aggressive at their older daughter, insisting she accompany him to work. The woman said her husband was excessively disciplined and did not allow the older girl to enjoy herself. He would even take her mobile phone.

She said she filed a police report when her husband insisted on taking one of their daughters to work with him, still in her pygamas. She had run away.

The woman said her husband had hit her and she was scared of him.

The court declared the minors’ testimony as inconsistent, saying that there was no tangible or concrete evidence that their father had committed the crimes he was being accused of. It then highlighted several inconsistencies in the testimonies and shortcomings in the evidence produced in court.

The court observed that the girls gave several testimonies, with the youngest one eventually retracting her whole testimony declaring it was all a lie.

The court observed that the case rested completely on the children’s credibility as corroborated by the evidence. The girls were not of a “tender” age when testifying and were fully aware of the consequences of giving evidence in court. Moreover, their testimonies were not corroborated by their older brother and the father, who opted to testify and denied any physical or sexual abuse.

The court also observed that while the older girl claimed to the police that her father tried to sexually abuse her in a van belonging to a third party, when testifying she did not mention the incident and complained of being asked too many questions. The owner of the vehicle was not summoned by the prosecution.

The girls had given a lot of detail to their social workers but failed to testify in such detail before the court.

Father slept on chairs

Their older brother explained that the girls slept with their mother and younger brother, while their father slept on chairs. He felt sorry for him, and would invite him to sleep in his bed.

The court observed that if there had been any sexual abuse, then either the mother or the other daughter would have witnessed it but none of them did.

In February 2025, the girl testified that it was all a lie and retracted her previous allegations about her father.

The court observed that the girl’s retraction strengthened the defence’s arguments that the alleged victims lied about their father because they did not like his old-fashioned ways of disciplining them.

He was therefore being acquitted of all charges relating to the children.

He was also being acquitted of the charge concerning his wife, with the court referring to the son’s testimony who said that they would both argue verbally but there was no physical altercation.

The court referred to the woman’s testimony and said that she failed to detail incidents or recall words which caused her to fear for her life.

Court's disappointment

The court expressed its disappointment at court and police resources being used by two minors and their mother, who clearly did not understand the serious consequences of their actions and charges issued against the man. One of the girls even faced perjury proceedings due to her testimony.

The court said that from the accused’s testimony and that of the son, it clearly emerged that the man had an old-fashioned style of disciplining his children and heading the family, with the son testifying he did not allow them to smoke or drink alcohol.

The court ruled that it was confident that the man did not commit the offences, while the alleged victims wanted more freedom, as his disciplinary methods were seen as not suitable.

The court deplored the alleged victims’ behaviour and the way they had opted   to “exaggerate” the father’s actions instead of resorting to family therapy.

The man was acquitted of all charges brought against him.

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit presided. AG lawyer Sean Azzopardi and Danika Vella prosecuted assisted by police inspectors Kylie Borg and Omar Zammit. Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri appeared for the accused.