Man acquitted of rape of ex-girlfriend

A man was acquitted of raping his ex-girlfriend after a court found that prosecutors failed to prove that the sexual contact was not consensual.

The trial took place behind closed doors this week; the case dates back to 2019.

The two met as students. Years later, they met again and began a short-lived relationship.

The woman told police that problems soon arose. He took out his anger on her, she said, and the sex was always so brutal that she bled.

She said she decided to break up after about three months. They met in Valletta and talked about the separation.

On the way home, the accused asked the woman to have something to eat with him at a fast food restaurant in Qormi.

The prosecution argued that this was a ruse to lure the woman into his car and rape her because he saw her merely as an outlet for his sexual frustration.

The woman claimed that he assaulted her in the car after they had eaten their food.

She said he penetrated her with his fingers despite her repeatedly telling him to stop when she started crying.

After he took her home, she talked to a friend about what had happened and decided to report the incident to the police.

He was accused of raping the woman. The public prosecutor had initially demanded a prison sentence of between nine and 30 years if he was found guilty.

To take account of recent changes in the law, this proposal was later amended to call for a prison sentence of between four and twenty years.

The trial began on Tuesday and the court announced the verdict on Saturday morning.

The defense insisted throughout the trial that the sexual contact was consensual and that the way the woman described the defendant in no way pertained to him.

The court heard from friends of the defendant, including his ex-wife, who all testified that he was a quiet and friendly man, albeit somewhat naive, but always reliable.

Criticism of police investigations

In her ruling, Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera criticized the police investigation into the case, particularly the miscommunication that led to a report being made to the police two days after the incident and the failure to subsequently initiate a judicial investigation to secure evidence.

The judge noted that although the defendant never denied that this sexual contact had occurred between them, he insisted that it was consensual.

The woman tried to portray the defendant as a man obsessed with violent sex, but she was the one who brought the violence into their sex life, she said. The court noted a message in which the man told the woman they should abstain from sex for a month after the woman told him she had bled after sexual intercourse.

Meanwhile, all of the defendant’s character witnesses insisted that these elements were alien to him. His ex-wife pointed out that he never asked her to engage in such activities and that she would not have allowed them if he had.

The court was not convinced that the incident was not consensual, particularly since evidence suggested that the woman was still in love with the defendant despite the separation.

Her personal past also shows that the woman cannot deal well with separations. The court found that she had assessed the woman’s character as “impulsive and emotional”.

“The court is not convinced that this allegation has been sufficiently proven because, while the prosecution has failed to prove its argument beyond reasonable doubt, the defence, which is not required to present evidence, has succeeded in establishing a reasonable doubt through its witnesses,” the court said.

Instead, Judge Scerri Herrera found the man guilty of the less serious offense of offending public morals by performing sexual acts in public and sentenced him to two weeks in prison, suspended for one year.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri appeared for the defendant.