AG appeals defendant's acquittal after Msida police station rape trial

The Attorney General has filed an appeal against a court’s acquittal of a police constable accused of the rape and sexual harassment of female colleagues at the Msida police station.

In an appeal submitted on Tuesday, the Attorney General urged the court to overturn Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s decision to acquit the defendant, after ruling a statement released by the accused in which he confessed, to be inadmissible evidence.

Last March, the 33-year-old police constable was cleared of the rape charges but was found guilty of harassing a second woman, a teenage recruit.

He was handed a suspended one-year prison sentence, valid for a period of two years. Due to a court order, the identity of the police constable involved in the case cannot be disclosed. 

The Attorney General has now appealed the case, urging the court to accept the confession as evidence and overturn the acquittall.

During an appeal hearing held before Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with judges Edwina Grima and Giovanni Grixti, the parties debated the admissibility of the incriminating statement made by the officer in 2018.

Defence lawyers Franco Debono and Edward Gatt argued that the confession lacked legal validity due to a change in the law regarding the cautioning of arrested individuals.

Debono stated that when the law was amended in November 2016 to grant the right to legal assistance during interrogations, the cautioning procedure was also modified.

The officer's interrogation occurred in March 2018. Debono contended that the caution, which was read out and typed in an extremely small font size on the statement, was not done in accordance with the 2016 amendment.

According to Debono, the caution included the inference rule, which was no longer applicable, and allowed any omission made by the accused to be used against him. This limitation imposed by the police had caused significant distress to the accused, Debono argued.

Contrary to the pre-2016 caution, which stated that a court could draw an inference of guilt if a suspect sought legal assistance before interrogation, the law was subsequently reversed. The new rule explicitly states that no inference of guilt can be drawn from unassisted interrogations. The defence argued that this change was not a mere technicality but a substantial revision of the previous position, with significant implications for the suspect's legal rights.

Deputy Attorney General Philip Galea Farrugia, while acknowledging that the caution used was outdated, emphasised that it did not affect the content of the confession.

He objected to the defence's request for a ruling on this matter prior to addressing the remaining aspects of the appeal, asserting that it should not impede the court from overturning the judgment.

The court has adjourned the case until July 10 to reach a decision on this issue.

Background

During the trial, the alleged victim testified that the accused had raped her at the Msida police station while both were on duty in February 2018, as well as in the following month.

Another colleague, a 19-year-old recruit, testified that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the officer, including incidents that occurred inside a police car during night duty and while waiting outside the law courts in Valletta.

The accused had made inappropriate comments about her physique, placed his hand under her when she sat in the passenger seat, attempted to touch her leg in the car, and made remarks about his hand slipping from the gear stick.

Prosecutors argued in court that both women had been traumatized by the abuse, which was committed by someone whose duty was to prevent crime.

Presiding Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera described the Msida police station as a "brothel" but clarified that the lax and permissive behavior observed there did not necessarily indicate criminal wrongdoing.

The judge found the alleged rape victim's account to lack credibility and acquitted the officer of all charges related to her. A comprehensive analysis of her testimony revealed inconsistencies, leading the judge to conclude that it was "more likely" the sexual encounters were consensual.

Judge Scerri Herrera, however, ruled that the defendant had crossed a line with his behavior toward the second woman, resulting in his conviction.