Teacher cleared of child defilement due to lack of solid evidence

A teacher has been acquitted of defiling a child aged under 10 after a court held there was was "no tangible and solid evidence" that the man had committed the alleged offences.

The man was charged with defiling the child and engaging in sexual activities with them between 2016 and 2018.

In court, the child testified the man was their teacher and the partner of a relative. The child claimed he made "indecent" comments about their appearance and weight, adding that the incidents took place in the man's home and in his car.

The child, "X", also testified that they liked the accused and did not stop him.

X also alleged he showed them pornography and touched their breast and genital area from under the clothes.

It was only when the child happened to be in hospital for unrelated health issues that they opened up about the abuse with a nurse.

The court observed that the case rests on the credibility of the witness as corroborated by evidence brought forward by the prosecution.

The court held that the child’s version to the police was different to what they testified in court, and that it was not corroborated by what their friend testified. This included the fact that the child told the police he touched her indecently over her clothes but changed their version in court.

The court found it hard to believe that the alleged offences happened at a relative’s home noting that the circumstantial evidence did not tally up since there were other family members present in the house and someone would have noticed something.

The child also claimed that the accused had touched her while driving. However, from the man’s testimony it emerged he had a manual-driven vehicle which meant it would not have been possible for him to touch her during the short commute home along the busy road.

In their testimony, the child testified they were doing badly at school, however, their results showed otherwise and teachers only had positive comments to make.

The accused answered all questions when he was interrogated and chose to testify in court, where he always categorically denied the charges.

He admitted that one time he took the child to his house as he had forgotten to take a change of clothes. This lasted five minutes. On that particular occasion, he had asked permission from the child’s mother before taking them to his house. 

The court found the man’s testimony was closer to the truth than the child’s.

It also noted that the prosecution did not search his house for electronic devices and no extraction was requested to determine whether he was into pornography or the festishes the child had alluded to.

In its considerations, the court observed that the child had been through a lot of trauma and this was not easy for them. While it could believe that the man made comments on the child’s appearance this does not constitute defilement.

It underlined that the charges brought against him were very serious and warranted serious punishment. In its 58-page judgement, the court observed that it doubted whether he had really committed the offences he was being accused of.

Relatives of the child confirmed the man’s good character and also confirmed that the child sought his company.

The court, presided by Claire Stafrace Zammit, acquitted the man of the offences.

Police inspector Joseph Busuttil prosecuted.

Lawyers Edric Micallef Figallo, Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri appeared for the accused.