BishopAccountability.org
	Attorney General Refuses to Elaborate on Explanation Times of Malta August 12, 2011 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110812/local/Attorney-General-refuses-to-elaborate-on-explanation.379935 Attorney General Peter Grech has adamantly refused to answer questions on a statement issued by his Office regarding a mistake that led to a priest being cleared of rape charges. Magistrate Saviour Demicoli last week sentenced two priests for a total of 11 years in prison. They have both appealed from the judgment. One of the priests was cleared of a rape charge because his charge sheet erroneously said the crime happened in Marfa when it actually happened in Sta Venera. Some criminal lawyers have argued the error could have been corrected up until the prosecution closed its case. At first the Attorney General refused to reply on this matter because in his view the case was still sub judice once the judgment is being appealed. Then, last Monday, the Attorney General’s Office released a statement saying, among other things, that correcting the error at an advanced stage of the court proceedings could have led to the whole case collapsing. In light of the statement, The Times sent a series of follow-up questions to the Attorney General. But Dr Grech replied: “With reference to your 10 new (and at the same time not so new) questions and assumptions you may wish to note that what I had to say about this case pending appeal has already been said, within the limits of the law and of professional ethics, in the public statement of August 8, 2011. “In the circumstances, I have nothing to add to what was said in that statement.” These are the questions put the Attorney General: 1) What led to the mistake in the charge sheet being made in the first place? 2) At what stage would it have been too late to fix this error? 3) If correcting the charge at an “advanced stage” could have endangered the case, why could the charge sheet not be corrected at an “earlier stage”? 4) The Attorney General’s Office says that it did not conduct the prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court. However, does the Attorney General not oversee the process and get an update each month? Why did the lawyers at the Attorney General’s Office not notice this error? If the Attorney General’s Office did not handle the prosecution why did it feel the need to give this explanation? 5) What systems are in place to ensure that evidence is vetted along the way to spot any possible discrepancies with the charges and act accordingly without loss of time? 6) How common are such instances of mistakes in the charges? 7) Will the Attorney General appeal the judgment? 8) Can anything be done at this stage to bring the priest to justice over the rape charge? 9) Why did the Attorney General feel it should issue this statement when, a day earlier, it refused to answer questions on the same issue, arguing the case was still sub judice – which it also repeats in this statement. Does not sub judice imply matters directly related to the merits of the case and not who made a mistake and how it could be corrected or why it was not corrected? 10) Why was the case decided by a magistrate rather than taken before a jury?
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.