The eight years’ imprisonment handed to a man who repeatedly raped his young daughter was more than adequate, three judges have ruled, as they ordered him to pay double court expenses for filing a baseless case claiming a breach of human rights. 

“This is the case of a father who was not present at his daughter’s upbringing, and when he finally accepted her, instead of protecting her and spending the time with her to get to know her and build a father-daughter relationship, he raped her repeatedly, sometimes when she was under the influence of alcohol,” the judges said in their judgment.

The eight-year prison sentence is more than proportionate when considering the seriousness and the shocking facts of this case, they said. 

The eight years he got was more than proportionate for the shocking facts of the case- Judges

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul were ruling in a case of a man, whose name cannot be published by court order, who claimed a breach of his human right to a fair hearing. 

He argued that he did not have a lawyer present when he was being interrogated by the police in 2006 and when he released a statement to the police. However, the court found that the magistrate did not rely on anything he said in the statement to find him guilty of the crime. Even the Appeals Court did not refer to the statement when confirming the first court’s decision. 

The judges said the Appeals Court thoroughly examined all the facts of the case and agreed that the charges brought against the man had been corroborated by evidence, including the version of the victim. They noted that although he replied to questions during his interrogation, he categorically denied the accusations and did not admit to anything. 

The court noted that after having recounted what her father had done to her, a witness came forward to confirm that the man had been caught red-handed. It later emerged that the man had approached this witness to drop the version given in court.

On his complaint that the Appeals Court had not heard the witnesses from scratch, the judges observed that this is not normal practice, especially in cases of abuse where the victims have to relive what they had gone through. 

With regard to his final complaint that the prison sentence was disproportionate, the Constitutional Court ruled that it was within the parameters of the law and that the eight years he got was more than proportionate for the shocking facts of the case. 

The court found that the constitutional case was baseless and ordered the man to pay double the court expenses.