A witness in the trial, the victim's mother was unable to watch the first three days of the case against a convicted paedophile accused of assaulting her son unfold.

But on day four, her evidence given, she took a seat in the back of the court and watched, often in fear and horror, as only flimsy evidence was offered by the crown.

Throughout the trial she could be seen shaking her head and each break was spent telling her husband, the Police, crown counsel - anyone who would listen - that she didn't think the trial was going their way.

When the verdict was delivered, not guilty for housebreaking nor sexual assault by a ten to two majority, she could not hold back the tears.

“Even if you try and prepare yourself, there is nothing can you do when you hear something like that,” she said, her voice wavering as she recalled the moment the man she was so sure had entered her bedroom and touched her son's penis and buttocks, was given his freedom.

“I could see it was happening. There was so much that I wanted the jury to hear, but they couldn't.

“I don't blame them. I have pity for the jury. But when they woke up the next day and picked up the paper and saw what this man had done before and even what he was doing that night, ten of them who would have been sick to their stomachs. They would have been angry.”

What the jury couldn't be told during the trial was that the 27-year-old Warwick man, whom they eventually cleared of this assault, stood trial last year for an attempted sexual assault on a teenage boy on the same morning as this incident - in the end he admitted to trespassing and was jailed for 12 months.

During this trial he had said the night the alleged assault on the six-year-old took place, he had fallen asleep at the roadside after a night drinking Guinness at Showtime in Dockyard, and that his bike had been stolen.

The keys were later found in the six-year-old's apartment and the accused claimed only to have been seen in the area because he was looking for his bike.

There was forensic evidence that he had been in the neighbour's house - hence the trespassing conviction - but none that he had been in the other house where the assault took place around 45 minutes later.

But the jury didn't know this as it would have been prejudicial had they found out.

At least three other people, the judge and both counsels did know.

“What law is there that allows this man to stand up in court and lie?” she pleaded.

“The judge, the prosecution and the defence counsel would have known he wasn't telling the truth. How can that be justice? It is a travesty. That is what it is.”

She also critical of the Police, whom she blames for not gathering enough forensic evidence at the scene.

“The Police are saying they did the best job they can,” she continued, the anger evident in her voice.

“But why they didn't they fingerprint the handle to the bedroom door, why didn't they fingerprint the light switch - in evidence I said that the closet light was on when I went to bed, but off when I woke up.

“I understand it is difficult to find DNA evidence, but the Police told me they didn't need it - obviously they did.”

After the trial, even defence counsel Larry Mussenden launched an attack on the Police, saying his job of defending the accused should have been “a lot more difficult”.

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Kulendra Ratneser admitted to The Royal Gazette that separating the two trials had weakened the case but maintained that evidence that could have secured a conviction was still presented to the jury.

When asked if he could sympathise with the mother's criticism of the legal system because of the evidence that could not be presented he replied: “Many people do get frustrated with the system, but it has been that way for hundreds of years.

“In every case, whatever the outcome, there will be criticism of the justice system by one of the parties.”