Submissions in the appeal by the two former priests convicted of sexually abusing boys in their care were concluded on Friday morning, and while the defence based its case on the credibility of one of the victims, Lawrence Grech, the prosecution was in for criticism over what was described as a hateful and personal attack against Mr Grech.

Judge David Scicluna is expected to give his judgement on 26 October.

Lawyers Giannella de Marco and Joseph Giglio, who are representing Charles Pulis and Godwin Scerri, are claiming that Mr Grech had influenced the other victims to become involved.

Last August the former priests were jailed for six years and five years respectively over multiple counts of the sexual abuse of boys at St Joseph’s Home in Santa Venera, which is run by the Missionary Society of St Paul (MSSP). The two priests were subsequently defrocked.

The defence appealed against the conviction and sentence of both men and the two former priests have not yet begun to serve their sentence. They were granted bail and remain at the MSSP convent.

The Attorney-General’s office, meanwhile, filed an appeal against the decision to acquit Mr Scerri of a rape charge – the most serious charge of all – on an apparent technicality. The charge he faced specified that the rape occurred in the MSSP summer home in Marfa, but the victim testified that it had occurred at the home in Santa Venera.

The appeal hearing began on 13 January and three sittings were held, with the last being on Friday.

Dr de Marco, presenting two applications for witnesses to be heard, said that the defence wanted the court to hear new evidence. The first application was for three doctors to testify in Mr Scerri’s case and a psychiatrist to testify in Mr Pulis’ case.

The second was for TV presenter Lou Bondi, who had been the victims’ spokesman for a number of years, to confirm what he wrote in his blogs.

The lawyer explained that the defence’s case was based on the credibility of one of the victims, Lawrence Grech, who had been the first to forego his anonymity when news of the case broke. She noted that Mr Bondi had written in posts on his blog that Mr Grech had lied to him five times.

Dr de Marco insisted that Mr Grech was a liar who liked to be seen, and that his actions were motivated by personal interest. She said that Mr Grech’s personal conduct showed that he had a penchant for biting the hand that feeds him, adding that he had even tried to get money from the BBC.

As for the other victims who came forward, the lawyer insisted that Mr Grech had influenced them to get involved.

Meanwhile, on 18 April, the Attorney-General’s appeal against the acquittal of Mr Scerri raping a boy was rejected. Mr Justice David Scicluna confirmed the decision by Magistrate Saviour Demicoli clearing Godwin Scerri.

It noted that the prosecution had had enough time to correct the charge, which should be factual in time, fact and locality.

The defence’s appeal case consequently continued to be heard last month.

Dr Philip Galea Farrugia criticised the defence team of the defrocked priests for their personal attack against one of the victims, Lawrence Grech, against whom, he said, they were showing hatred.

Dr Galea Farrugia’s claim of hatred was strongly denied by Dr de Marco, who lodged the appeal with Dr Joseph Giglio. She said the application had been written with tongue-in-cheek and with sarcasm.

Dr Galea Farrugia said it was not true that the alleged victims of abuse had agreed among themselves to plot against the former priests for money. In fact, they were so genuine that in their testimony they recognised that the former priests shown them kindness.

Criticising the appeal, Dr Galea Farrugia said this almost alleged that Magistrate Saviour Demicoli had decided on a guilty verdict to please the public. It was true that there had been discrepancies in the victims’ testimony, but that testimony had been given in some cases after 18 years. Because the abuse had been committed more than once, it was impossible to remember the exact details of what had happened on each occasion.

The fact that the victims recognised that the former priests had also been kind to them and showed that they are credible and genuine. Dr Galea Farrugia said there was a tendency for vulnerable people to find themselves close to those who abused them and the victims had a sense of both anger and love about what had happened.

For the victims to ask for compensation for what had happened, Dr Galea Farrugia stated, did not mean that they were not credible in their testimony. Everyone can make a mistake but everyone has to submit to the law, including members of the clergy.

Dr Giglio, who preceded Dr Galea Farrugia, criticised the testimony of two of the victims in regard to Mr Scerri, and Magistrate Demicoli for deciding the case by relying only on certain statements.

Mr Scerri had been found guilty of corrupting a minor but the court had not found him guilty of this corruption when he was responsible for looking after the children. Magistrate Demicoli had not believed the alleged victim when testifying that Mr Scerri looked after them. How true could it be when the same victim said the former priests would enter rooms where there were 10 children, to abuse them?

On Friday, Dr Elaine Rizzo, for the prosecution, said something that definitely cannot be ignored and this is the testimony of the care worker who had entered the priest’s room at around midnight and witnessed a boy lying on him while his penis was erect and sticking out from his boxer shorts.

“This testimony cannot be discredited,” said Dr Rizzo said. “I’ve seen many men playing with children, and they never had their private part erect. This is not normal”.

“We cannot give the impression that our judicial system is a vacuum. Certain actions are against the law and minors must be protected according to the law. The law, in the name of society, considers punishment and justice needs to be served for the victims, society and with the residence for children, she explained.

Dr de Marco said that the first court had ignored a number of things, so the conclusion should not have been what it was. The query could not have been considered a continuous crime.

She went on to describe the victims as “liars” and said that the scene when Lawrence Grech is alleged to have pulled down the pants of a 13-year-old boy, was not normal behaviour.

She said that the fact that a man’s penis is erect does not necessarily mean arousal. According to Dr de Marco, it happens in the morning and when there is friction.

In their testimonies, the victims kept changing their versions of events and this was all for money, she said.

Dr de Marco’s final point was that the men who testified after several years of living away from the children’s home had people close to them – and even siblings – there at the time but no psychologists, foster parents, workers or other priests had corroborated what they had said.

This does not have anything to do with the Stockholm Syndrome – which occurs in the most psychologically traumatic situations such as kidnapping and is when victims continue to defend and care about their captors, even after it is over. The case here is totally different, said Dr de Marco, because no one was a captive.

Replying to points raised by the prosecution, Dr Giglio said the fact that Fr Godwin Scerri was barely mentioned in submissions by the prosecution is impressive. This merits careful consideration, he said.

He added that from the acts before the court, it has never been shown that any of the victims are suffering from any psychological condition and so the Stockholm Syndrome cannot be taken into consideration.

He concluded that this was an example of someone using the law to abuse it.

Lawyers Dr Philip Galea Farrugia and Dr Elaine Rizzo represented the Attorney-General and Dr Giannella de Marco and Dr Joseph Giglio appeared for the priests.