The Malta Independent
August 11, 2011
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=130200
 |
A correction to Fr Godwin Scerri’s charge sheet to amend a mistake in relation to a rape charge was possible but could have led to negative repercussions on the whole case and could have even led to having the whole case falling apart.
In a clarification statement issued yesterday, the Office of the Attorney General gave an explanation regarding last week’s judgement in the case against the two priests Carmelo Pulis and Godwin Scerri, both found guilty by the Court of Magistrates of sexually abusing children at St Joseph Home and a summer residence in Marfa.
Fr Scerri was charged with raping a boy at the summer residence they used in Marfa. Although the rape had taken place, magistrate Saviour Demicoli, who presided over the court, concluded that the minor had been raped at St Joseph Home in Santa Venera and not in Marfa.
The priest could, therefore, not be found guilty of this charge.
Giving a chronology of facts, Attorney General Peter Grech pointed out the police filed charges on 13 October 2003 and the first court sitting took place on 28 October that year.
On 15 April 2004, the Attorney General sent the case to be heard and decided before the Court of Magistrates and on 5 May 2004, just over six months after the case started, the police declared it had closed its evidence.
The defence counsel then started making its case. It declared it had no more evidence to present on 9 March this year.
All throughout the process, the victims were part of the process and were legally assisted by a lawyer they trusted.
Making direct reference to the fact that the charge could have been corrected, the Attorney General said this would have had its own consequences and risks especially at an advanced stage of proceedings.
First and foremost though, the Attorney General’s office clarified that it does not lead prosecution before the Court of Magistrates, as the police do so.
If a correction would have been registered, the accused could have asked to be notified from afresh with the whole proceedings. They could also have asked for witnesses to be heard again.
All this has risks over the time-barring of procedures (meaning that after a certain time lapse, the accused cannot be found guilty). Even charges that were not subject to correction could end up at a stage where they could not be continued and the whole case fails.
Starting the hearing from afresh also carries huge risks of delays, incorrectness and discrepancies between witnesses, the AG office explained.
“The correction of charges is therefore not a clean-cut solution and if this takes place at an advanced stage of proceedings, the whole case can be ruined,” it said.
The Attorney General continued to explain that the discrepancy regarding the place of crime was issued for the first time in the final judgement handed by the court and which is pending appeal.
Consequently, the case is still sub-judice and comments on the merits of the case from the prosecution are not appropriate at this stage. The prosecution will be discussing merits of the case by means of its submissions in court.
Finally, it was noted that Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri was appointed Attorney General on 11 May 2004 and the current Attorney General was appointed on 9 September 2010.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.