Man accused of raping 9-year-old daughter has request denied for trial-by-jury to be suspended

A man who has been charged with raping his then 9-year-old daughter twice had a constitutional request for the trial by jury to be suspended, denied.

His request is based on the argument that should the trial by jury begin before his constitutional case is decided, he will not be given a fair trial and the jury would be prejudiced against him.

Lawyers representing the accused have filed a constitutional case claiming that his fundamental rights were breached when he was initially arrested on the rape charges. The accused claimed that he was held under arrest in jail for the period longer than is allowed by law – which constitutes inhumane and degrading treatment and that he was not allowed access to a lawyer before interrogations or while he was giving his statement.

The constitutional case was initially filed in 2015, where Judge Michael Mallia declared the case to be "frivolous" and deferred it until it was time for it to be heard before a jury.

In the 2015 judgment, the allegations against the accused are as follows:

In 2004 and some months/years prior the accused allegedly violently raped his daughter. This allegedly took place on two separate occasions by the accused entering in the bedrooms where his daughter could be found.

The description of events claim that the first time the violent rape took place, his daughter was just nine years old, and happened in his son's bedroom. He allegedly entered the room, locked the door and started to kiss his daughter on the mouth. He then, according to claims, ordered her to touch him intimately, until this eventually led to the rape.

The second incident took place in the daughter's own bedroom, where he allegedly asked her to remove her clothing. It was said in court that the accused left a mark on his daughter's neck, which prompted her mother to question the father. When she did so, he reportedly changed the subject.

It was also claimed that the accused warned his daughter not to speak out. It was reported that only after a long time did the daughter have the courage to speak up at a Christian Doctrine Society meeting (Muzew).

The office of the Attorney General considered the following allegations of wrongdoing: corrupting a minor, corrupting a minor who is under 12-years-old and causing long-term damage to a minor under 12-years-old especially through the trust he enjoyed as the girl's father, among others.

In the judgment published today, the courts held that the constitutional case could not be decided until all criminal proceedings, i.e. the trial by jury is concluded. It stated that the accused may then filed the constitutional case and appeal once the proceedings are concluded. It also ordered for the criminal courts to provide for a fair trial, in line with the law. 

from The Malta Independent http://ift.tt/2fyRskP
via IFTTT