Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/181770
5 News maltatoday, SUNDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2013 Man who took pity on runaway charged with her kidnap Attard man is acquitted of kidnapping, defiling 10-year-old whose family prodded the child to accuse him of sex abuse CHRIS MANGION A man charged with the kidnapping and defilement of a 10-year-old girl was acquitted after the police prosecution failed to prove the alleged molester's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Magistrate Audrey Demicoli said that the testimonies of both the victim and the alleged aggressor had "eroded the credibility" of the child's version of events, creating sufficient doubt to force the court to favour the accused's version. The incident took place on 2 August 2007, when the girl, then aged 10, ran away from her mother's house in Mellieha after she and her mother argued over a bed-wetting incident. According to the girl's version of events, she managed to hitch a ride to Attard, where her grandmother lived. It was in Attard, outside a confectionery, the girl alleged, that a man, the 32-year-old accused, struck up a conversation with her, took her home to shower and play with his pet dog and also hugged and kissed her. The girl's stepmother, who later managed to get the accused's details and contact information from the owner of the confectionery, filed a police report which led to the arrest of the man by Police Inspector Elton Taliana. According to the accused's testimony, he admitted to Taliana that he had taken the girl home after she told him that her mother wanted to "lock her up in a children's home". Under oath, the accused stated that In his testimony, the accused said he had admitted hugging and kissing the girl – but not with improper intent – giving her money and then taking her back to the confectionery The testimonies of both the victim and the alleged aggressor "eroded the credibility" of the child's version of events, creating sufficient doubt to force the court to favour the accused's version Taliana had told him "there would be no problem" and that he was allowed to leave. Yet Police Inspector Raymond Aquilina of the vice squad rearrested him two days later. On his part, Taliana explained that the girl's father had previously informed him that his child was "a liar", though he believed that the accused had molested her. "I spoke to the victim, who insisted that the man had not touched her, but that it was her family who told her to say so." As it turned out, Taliana had passed the case to the vice squad to handle, which is why the accused was eventually arrested and charged. In his testimony, the accused said he had admitted to police that he had hugged and kissed the girl, but not with improper intent. He had given her money and then took her back to the Attard confectionery. "I made sure there was an adult there before I left, and left him my number." The accused's version was corroborated by his partner, with whom he had been living for the previous six years. In court, contradictions abounded between the alleged victim's testimony, including under cross-examination, and her uncle's statement to the police and his court testimony regarding his intervention to defend his niece. In her testimony, made through video conferencing, the girl claimed that the man had taken her home from the Attard confectionary, given her Lm5 (€11.50), started kissing her lips and neck, and touched her private parts and buttocks. She alleged that he had spoken badly of her parents and that he gave her a number for his Safi address, where she could sleep if she left home again. She also gave a detailed description of the man's house and claimed she had wanted to leave but the accused had made her stay for another 30 minutes. But under cross-examination by defence lawyer Michael Sciriha, the girl contradicted her previous statements, saying that the man had comforted her with his advice – urging her to return home. She stated that she had not been scared of him until he allegedly touched her. She added that she had been scared in the presence of the police during questioning without her father by her side. A contradictory testimony later emerged from the girl's uncle, who first told police that he had met the accused the day following the alleged crimes and confronted him about the fact that he had taken the girl to his house. While under crossexamination by the defence, he declared that he had not spoken to his niece the day of her disappearance, but after she had given the police her statement on the alleged kidnapping. The uncle changed his version of events, saying in court that he had actually thanked the accused for having found his niece. The owner of the confectionery confirmed that the accused had purchased a drink for the girl. "He told me that he had taken her home, fed her and even given her clothes. He told her to return home and gave me his mobile number so her parents would know who she had been with. I gave his details to the girl's uncle," the shopkeeper said. The court held that there was no doubt that the man had taken the girl to his residence after she had run away from home, something the accused himself admitted. "While he had no right or reason to do what he did, the court has to consider the inconsistencies in the evidence," the magistrate said. Quoting Inspector Taliana's testimony, the court said that it had been the victim's family who claimed the accused had sexually abused her. "The alleged victim only spoke of abuse when in the presence of her parents and denied it when the police spoke to her alone. This erodes the credibility of the child's version of events, and such doubt has to favour the accused." The man was acquitted of all charges. The court issued a publication ban on the names of the accused, the victim and her family members. Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Lucio Scriha appeared for the accused.