Every time a member of the clergy is accused of sexual abuse, exactly the same series of events is played out. First, the allegations are made public, then we learn that the case has been in front of the Curia's (NON) response team for ages, then he is charged and arraigned, and then the 'non-judgmental' types come out from whatever dark corner they've been hiding in and start to defend the presumption of innocence. They argue, usually until they're blue in the face, that we cannot try someone in the court of public opinion and that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They even argue that the name of the accused should not be made public.

For reasons explained by the editor of this news portal, The Malta Independent chose to publish the name of the latest priest to be accused of sexual abuse. Other sections of the media decided not to and, legally, they are both in the right.

Whether to publish names or not is entirely at the discretion of every editor but, quite frankly, I've had it up to here with blind defenders of the Church who are only up in arms when the accused happens to be a priest.

In other cases, when the names of defendants are plastered all over the media before their case is decided, we hardly get anyone crying out for privacy or defending the presumption of innocence, do we?

Where are these people when Erin Tanti is being torn apart on discussion boards?

Where were they when the Mosta cat killer was charged?

Where were they when Minister Owen Bonnici was being told to resign before his case had even been heard, let alone decided?

Let me be frank from the start: I never, not even for a second, presumed that any of the priests accused of sexual abuse were innocent. If you think this is shameful, then so be it, but for me to assume them innocent I would also need to assume that our police force and Attorney General are idiots, which I don't - at least not most of the time. 

Of course mistakes have happened, and people have been arraigned and then found to be innocent, but with all the Church's wheels turning to cover things up for eight whole years, and with the police having to jump through hoops to get their hands on evidence, it's rather unlikely that they're wrong when they finally decide to arraign a priest for sexual abuse.

Had I to presume that Charles Fenech is innocent, for example, I'd also have to assume that the police haven't seen the text messages that are being referred to by the alleged victims, that they have not verified the authenticity of the messages and that they do not know the difference between a clandestine but consensual relationship and an abusive one.

Puhhlease!

We can question the police and prosecutors all we like, but we don't necessarily need to presume that they are inherently corrupt or stupid, at least not every time.

And with more than one woman accusing the same person of the same thing, am I to presume that they all came together to destroy a man's life, for no reason? Let's face it, not even The Church itself is presuming this man's innocence, otherwise why would it have stopped him from administering the sacraments? That part of his job wouldn't put anyone in danger, would it?

Now I'm not saying that the presumption of innocence should go out the window, but with the Church's history of shoving things under the carpet, with its tried and tested delaying tactics and with its expertise in protecting the wrong people, I would bet my bottom dollar that in the case of sexual abuse by priests, there would never be any smoke without a hot burning fierce fire.

Of course, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt is a whole different story because the law is stacked in favour of the accused. This means that it is essentially up to the alleged victims to prove their case and not vice versa. In principle, I agree with this because the potential consequence of being found guilty is prison, and I'd rather let a hundred guilty people go free than risk convicting one who is innocent. But, agree as I might, until I am sitting in that jury box myself, I have absolutely no obligation to believe shameful fiction.

The only way that we can possibly presume that everyone is innocent until a case is decided is by remaining uninformed and not evaluating the evidence in front of us. We would need to ignore the signs, the clues - and all the witnesses - until the judge or jury decide for us.

Essentially, we'd need to stop thinking for ourselves, which is never a good idea, and for some of us not even possible.

There are various reasons why the law allows the publication of the names of those charged with a criminal offence, and arguing that this violates a presumption of innocence is wrong because, legally, the presumption continues to apply throughout the case until a verdict is reached. 

Were we to never name people accused of a crime until they have been convicted, we would end up with a secret justice system, which goes against democracy, against freedom of expression and against the principle of justice not only being done but also being seen to be done. There are also practical gains to be had from the publication of names - new witnesses might contact the police with fresh evidence and other victims could also find the courage to come forward.

The main problem I see is that the media are not obliged to follow up on cases and publish the final verdict. But if our legal reform is ever going to happen, then we should take this opportunity to include a legal right requiring the media that publishes the name of a person accused of a crime to also publish details of the outcome of that case.

And since it is practically impossible for the media to keep track of every case that it reports, this right should be given to anyone who has had their name published and would like the outcome published, ideally as prominently as the case was reported in the first place.