Ex-policeman accused of raping colleague at police station has preliminary pleas refused

A judge has dismissed preliminary pleas filed by an ex-policeman who stands indicted for allegedly repeatedly raping a colleague at a police station in 2018, clearing the way for his case to continue.

According to the judgment, the 31-year-old man’s bill of indictment explains at length and in great detail how the accused had allegedly sexually harassed, repeatedly groped and later raped one female officer on more than one occasion in the kitchenette at the police station where they were both stationed. He was also alleged to have sexually assaulted another in a police car in the months leading up to March 2018.

At the time, the first victim was in a relationship and had a child, while the other was a 19-year-old new recruit.

During the man’s arraignment, his lawyer Alfred Abela had asked the court to order a ban on publication of any of the details of the accused as this would have repercussions on the victims and their police work. “Otherwise, it would be impossible for the women to continue with their jobs,” he said.

In the bill of indictment, the Attorney General requests the man be sentenced to imprisonment for between five and 40 years with periods of solitary confinement.

As part of the accused’s preliminary pleas, the man’s defence team had attempted to convince the court to allow the presentation of a number of documents and chat logs relating to online social media accounts from Instagram and Facebook as well as online dating site Badoo, but the Attorney General had objected, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible as there was no indication as to who had performed the downloads of the information.

In a decision handed down today, the Criminal court presided by madame justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera agreed with the Attorney General, stating that a photocopy of a screenshot from sites such as Facebook without verification as to the author of the post and the date and provenance of the same is not sufficient evidence at law. Quoting case law on the matter, it said: “The court cannot rest on documents which it cannot verify the authenticity or provenance of. This is not valid evidence.”

Even if, for the sake of the argument, the court were to allow the documents to be exhibited, said the judge, their probatory value was minimal as they could never establish their authenticity. The rules of evidence also applied to the defence when they made allegations themselves.

Noting that the authenticity of the documents presented was “in no way proven”, the court said that they could not be held as admissible. The court ordered that they be expunged from the acts of the case.