A couple who faced a one-day trial over the rape of a Maltese woman that allegedly took place in a hotel room nine years ago were cleared on the strength of evidence showing that the sex was consensual.
The alleged victim had claimed that the Tunisian man and his Maltese girlfriend had offered her a lift to Paceville on that January evening in 2012, when she had informed the social shelter where she was living that she planned to spend the night out on her birthday.
When the couple’s car ran out of fuel, a tow truck was called for assistance and the trio were dropped off at Mosta.
From there they proceeded to Buġibba, checking into a hotel for a one-night stay.
The alleged victim, thinking that she would take the single bed while the couple would sleep in a double bed inside the same room, later recalled how her two roommates had stripped off their clothes and then turned upon her.
She had claimed that she was undressed and forced to have sex, allegedly fighting back, even biting the man and scratching his girlfriend.
But her struggles proved futile and she was raped by the man, who later also proceeded to have sex with his girlfriend in her presence.
Two days later, she filed a report which led to criminal action against the couple.
The man was accused of violent rape while the woman was accused as his accomplice.
But when testifying at the trial on Tuesday, nine years after her alleged ordeal, the victim painted a different picture, more violent than that described in previous testimony, observed the court, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, delivering judgment at the end of a marathon session.
The victim claimed to have been coerced into the hotel, with a knife at her back, held by the man.
Yet, a forensic medical expert who examined both accused as well as the alleged victim, reported that he had found no bite marks on the man, in spite of the victim’s insistence that he had been bleeding profusely.
The grip marks found on the victim were “ageing bruises” not caused by violence, said the doctor, excluding a “night of aggression and resistance”.
Another forensic expert reported the presence of an enzyme associated with seminal fluid on the victim’s clothes, confirming that a sample matched the accused’s DNA.
In light of all evidence, the court concluded that the victim’s version was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked credibility.
The woman had willingly accompanied the couple to the hotel and did not leave even when she had a chance to do so, checking out with the accused the following day, observed the court.
Moreover, the prosecution had failed to produce a number of persons, mentioned in testimonies linked to that night’s events.
That was a “great shortcoming”, Judge Scerri Herrera remarked, adding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the alleged sex, although “disgusting” and in violation of a person’s decency, was non-consensual.
It all appeared to have taken place among three consenting adults in a private hotel room, said the court, pronouncing an acquittal, while ordering notice of the judgment to be served upon the police commissioner to possibly investigate the alleged victim for perjury.
Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Simon Micallef Stafrace were defence counsel.