Gozitan man, 63, cleared of abusing daughter

A court has thrown out a series of banal sexual abuse charges, which had been filed against a 63 year-old man by his now 20-year old daughter, remarking that the allegations had been “a shameful conflation of acts of parental love with lust” and hinting at a hidden agenda behind the charges.

The man from Zebbug, Gozo, had been arrested in 2010, after his daughter, then aged 15, had filed a police report at the Victoria police station, saying that she had been sexually abused by her father, five years prior.

The girl said that on one occasion, her father had rubbed a popular menthol decongestant ointment on her neck and chest when she had the flu, on another, he had grabbed her thigh and touched her belly because she had a rash. He had not touched her breasts, the girl confirmed. The third and final instance of the alleged abuse was when the father had asked her, while he was having a shower, to fetch him a set of underpants.

Her parents had been in the midst of contentious separation proceedings, which had been started on account of the wife's numerous extramarital affairs, the court had heard. In view of this and other evidence, the court was not convinced that the report had not been filed maliciously, on the mother's prompting.

It also noted with regret that the alleged victim had attempted to involve Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Mercieca - a relative of the accused - in the case, by saying that he had held a meeting with her to discuss the problems between her parents.

Magistrate Joe Mifsud held that the charges reflected a conflation of parental love and lust and risked bringing about the ridiculous situation where a father could not embrace or bathe his own children, or take care of them when sick, for fear of being accused of sexual abuse.

"This would be a greater shame for society in general and for justice, especially taking into account the great efforts being made to give parents an equal part in the upbringing of their children, such as the introduction of parental leave for fathers.”

The court lamented that the case had been delayed because of a change in presiding magistrate as well as the original prosecuting police officer, following allegations, by the mother, of impropriety between the police inspector and the daughter.

The court's request for the exhibition of the police internal investigation into the allegations was rebuffed, however. Changes to the prosecuting inspector were the prerogative of the Commissioner of Police and internal administrative files were exempt from scrutiny, under the Freedom of Information Act, the court was told.

Lawyer Kathleen Grima was defence counsel.