‘You’re doing a disservice to rape victims,’ magistrate tells victim who withdrew complaint

A woman who had filed a police report last week, claiming to have been raped by a Japanese consultant, tearfully withdrew her accusation in court and begged forgiveness for what she described as “only a little quarrel.” 

The alleged victim took the witness stand on Monday morning as the compilation of evidence against the 41-year-old Japanese professor began before Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech.  

The defendant had been remanded in custody earlier this month after he was charged with having raped the woman, his former partner at his flat in Sliema. 

During the man’s arraignment last week, it emerged that the defendant, his former girlfriend and a friend had returned to the apartment after the woman felt tired while on a night out. That court had been told that the three had slept at the apartment and, after their mutual friend left, the man demanded sex from his former partner, who refused his advances, only to be raped. 

The defendant had denied the charge, and had told the police that his former partner would sometimes go to his residence to have sex. 

When the sitting began, magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech announced that the court had been told that the woman wished to withdraw her complaint. “He is not guilty,” said the woman. 

The magistrate pointed out to her that she had reported him and that the police did not get this information “from the cosmos,” but the witness insisted. 

Magistrate Frendo Dimech warned the woman not to “play games.”  

“This man has been under arrest for 11 days. If he did something to you, he will answer, because Maltese society is not only made up of you but the whole population. I just want the truth,” said the magistrate. 

The court pointed out to the witness that while she could forgive the defendant, she could not lie to the court. 

“I didn’t tell a lie,” wept the woman, communicating through an interpreter, who was later substituted mid-sitting. “He asked for sex…” 

The court asked her why she now wanted to withdraw the case, asking whether someone was forcing her to do so. 

“No this is my decision,” the woman replied in broken English. “I think it was just bad fight, but I called the police.”  

This led the Court to ask why she had clearly told the police that the defendant had attempted to rape her and not that the incident was just a fight. 

“I explained everything to the policeman, that he had asked for a sexual relationship and I refused. He [the defendant] got angry because I said no and then it became a big fight and I called the police.” 

Asked if the professor had actually tried to rape her, the woman glanced back at the accused and answered “Now, I understand that it might not be rape. I was upset at the time.” 

“He was not trying to rape her but at the time she was upset and confused and she felt that he was going to rape her,” explained the interpreter, after the woman spoke to him in Japanese. 

The magistrate urged the woman to tell the truth, pointing out that she had told the police something else. 

“I don’t want him to stay in prison,” replied the woman, weakly, prompting the court to point out that the defendant was already out on bail and not in custody. The witness was warned that if she was lying now because she didn't want the defendant to go to prison, she would face criminal action herself. 

“She wants him to be free” explained the interpreter. “Nothing happened. That’s why she wants to withdraw the case.” said the interpreter. 

Magistrate chastised the woman, telling her that she was doing a disservice to rape victims. 

“Why did you file a false report to the police then?” demanded the magistrate. “I didn’t lie,” replied the woman. “The truth is he punched me slightly.” 

“He grabbed you from your hair, grabbed you from your arm,” said the magistrate, reading from her police report. “Yes.” replied the woman. 

“Why did this happen?” asked the court. “Because I refused to have sex,” replied the witness. “You cannot call it violence, it is just small.” said the woman, telling the court that she wanted to withdraw the case. 

Frendo Dimech underlined that it was very important to the court to know whether the defendant had still attempted intercourse after the woman had said no. The woman nodded as the interpreter translated. 

“Before, they were boyfriend and girlfriend,” the interpreter translated her as saying. “After they broke up, sometimes they have sex.”  

“Normally people don’t call the police when they have sex,” pointed out the magistrate.  

At this point, the court said that it would have to confront the witness with her police report, as uncomfortable as it was.  

“We went to his apartment and I slept in a separate bed. In the morning when we woke up he wanted to have sex with me and I didn’t want [to]. Then he touched my vagina with his [penis] and I said I would not want it.” 

Asked by the magistrate what happened next, the woman replied: “He got angry, then he grabbed me by my left arm, pulled my hair and told me to leave.”  

The magistrate pointed out that the witness had previously told the police that there was “a little penetration.” 

But in court this morning, the woman insisted that this had been mistranslated and no penetration had taken place.  

The woman’s request to withdraw her complaint was eventually accepted by the court, which noted that the woman had explained that she had been upset at the time and there was also an interpretation problem. The magistrate asked prosecutors to investigate their cases before bringing them to court.  

Adopting a stern but compassionate tone, the magistrate declared that the woman had not made a false allegation against the defendant. 

“I want to ensure that justice is done both to him and to you, also to other women who could end up in the same situation and, unlike you, not have the courage to speak up. So, I thank you for speaking up and clarifying this.” 

The court pointed out to the prosecution that it could not separate the charges at this stage, and declared that it had seen sufficient prima facie evidence to substantiate the slight bodily harm charge. The Attorney General will now have to decide on the way forward. 

As the sitting came to an end, the woman burst into tears on the stand. “I am very sorry,” she said, in English. “It was a small quarrel and she called the police,” said her interpreter. 

The woman apologised to the defendant for the trouble she had caused him, before being escorted out of the courtroom. The court ordered her not to contact the defendant for the time being. 

In view of the woman’s open court request for forgiveness for what she herself described as “a little quarrel”, the court upheld the defence’s request for a ban on the publication of the man’s name under article 517 (1) criminal code. 

Lawyer Danika Vellla from the Office of the Attorney General prosecuted together with police inspector Jonathan Ransley. 

Lawyer Maria Karlsson represented the defendant.