Credibility stays with the court that heard the child

The Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) on 28 April 2026 dismissed S.M.'s appeal against convictions for sexual offences against a girl under 12. Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera held that an appeal court does not replace the first court's view of a witness's credibility where that court could reasonably and legally reach it. The court also kept the sentence of eight years' imprisonment.

The facts

S.M. worked in a small shop where the girl was a customer. The prosecution charged him with a non-consensual act of a sexual nature, defiling a minor, sexual harassment and causing fear of violence. The charges were aggravated because the victim was a minor and vulnerable, and a fifth charge was unrelated to the point.

The Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature found him guilty of all charges. It sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment and made a three-year restraining order under article 382A of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta). It also ordered his name entered in the register kept under Chapter 518 of the Laws of Malta.

On appeal, S.M. argued that the evidence was wrongly assessed, that the circumstantial evidence was not univocal and that the punishment was excessive. He had always denied the acts. He pointed to the language barrier he faced both in his statement and in court.

What the court held

The court noted that everything turned on two contrasting versions, because S.M. and the girl were alone in the shop and there was little other evidence. In that setting, article 637 of the Criminal Code leaves credibility to the judge of fact. That judge weighs the witness's demeanour, conduct and character, the consistency of the evidence and any corroboration.

The court stressed its role as a court of revision. The first court had seen and heard the witnesses, including the girl and the appellant, while the appeal court had only transcripts. Quoting its earlier case law, the court said it does not disturb the first court's appreciation “jekk tasal ghall-konkluzzjoni li dik il-Qorti setghet ragonevolment u legalment tasal ghall-konkluzzjoni li waslet ghaliha” (if it concludes that that court could reasonably and legally reach the conclusion it reached).

Under article 638(2), the evidence of one witness, if believed, is enough to convict. Having read the whole record, the court found the girl consistent even in small details, from her report to the police to her evidence in court. Her account was also supported by other witnesses.

The court accepted that there was a language barrier. It held, however, that a number of significant contradictions in the appellant's own account could not be set aside. S.M. also offered no evidence of any motive for the girl or her parents to invent the allegations.

The court found that the first ground had little substance. S.M. never explained why his version was more believable, and he did not say which details the first court had overlooked. The court rejected the ground in its entirety.

On sentence, the court applied the rule that it does not interfere with a punishment within the law unless it is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It pointed to aggravating circumstances: the acts were repeated on three separate occasions, the victim was a young child, and the conduct grew worse each time. It dismissed both grounds and left the first court's judgment in place in its entirety.

Why it matters

An appeal that attacks credibility needs more than a general claim that the complainant lied. The appellant must point to specific inconsistencies or show a motive to fabricate.

The appeal court reads transcripts, and it defers to the court that heard the witnesses unless that court could not reasonably have reached its conclusion. A general plea of reasonable doubt, without detail, is unlikely to move it.

Where it sits

The case applies the rules of evidence in the Criminal Code on the credibility of witnesses in article 637 and on the best evidence and the single witness in article 638. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which the court described as doubt dictated by reason, not a mere shadow of doubt.

On its role as a court of revision, the court drew on the Court of Criminal Appeal (31 July 2008) and (1 December 1994). On a witness who may be consistent in truth or in falsehood, it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (19 December 2019). It referred to the Criminal Court (11 January 2019) on offences against the person where the evidence is one account against another.

On the standard of proof, it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (5 December 1997), and on conflicting evidence the same court (9 July 2003). On circumstantial evidence, it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (6 May 1961) and (9 January 1998).

On sentence, it followed the Court of Criminal Appeal (24 February 2023) and (9 April 2024), and referred to the English Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline for offences where the victim is a child.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 28 April 2026, 691/2023/1