But Crown Counsel Mr. Stephen Harrison, when asked by The Royal Gazette whether the Attorney General's department intended to launch an appeal, would only say that they were reviewing the decision.

Filomena Cabral, 33, of Laffan Street, was found guilty on May 27, 1993 in Magistrates' Court of bruising Daniella D'Amato's thigh.

In his six-page judgment, the Chief Justice said that although child abuse was a matter that concerned the community, Cabral "cannot be made a scapegoat for societal concerns''.

Cabral, who was represented by lawyer Mr. John Barritt, was elated with the decision although she declined to comment.

She was charged on September 24, 1992, with unlawfully assaulting Danielle D'Amato causing her bodily harm while the child was in her care on April 3, 1992.

Cabral was at the time a licensed babysitter with 16 years experience. She normally took care of five children but on April 3, she had eight children in her charge.

Reading the facts as set out in his judgment, the Chief Justice said Mrs. Toni D'Amato had dropped off her daughter to Cabral's mother's home around 8.15 a.m. on April 3, 1992 and collected her at 5.15 p.m.

Cabral told Mrs. D'Amato that there was a red mark on the child's leg, which she said was caused accidentally when she pulled a stick, which she described as two feet long and about three inches wide, from one of the other children.

Mrs. D'Amato telephoned Dr. June Hill later that day and took the child to the hospital for an examination around 7.30 p.m. After examining the child, Dr.

Hill called the Police and photographs were taken of the bruises.

Dr. Hill said the bruise on the child's thigh was four to five inches in diameter, and bluish red in colour. She also pointed out that she had noticed there were two other bruises.

Dr. Keith Cunningham, a clinical pathologist, assessed the bruises from Police photographs and made a statement on September 24, 1992. Although the court accepted him as an expert witness, Dr. Cunningham admitted that forming an opinion from looking only at photographs was not a very satisfactory way to make an evaluation. He said the bruises to the child's right elbow and left arm were more than 24 hours old, but they were in areas expected of a toddler.

But the bruises she had on her thigh were, in his opinion, less than 24 hours old at the time the photograph was taken.

Dr. Cunningham said that the bruises appeared to have been made by a flat, slightly flexible object, with a curved end. He said he believed the bruises were caused by two slight blows from the end of a belt, rather than a single blow from a piece of wood.

He said the marks on the child's elbow and arm should have been visible to anyone who had changed the child that morning, though the child's parents said they had not seen them.

He added that the marks on the child's thigh were not welts, since there was no raising of the tissue and they could have been caused by a hand hitting the child's thigh two or three times depending on the amount of force.

Dr. Cunningham was unable to say exactly when the injury occurred, the instrument, or the degree of force used.

Mr. Justice Ward said that since there was no direct evidence from any witness that they saw Cabral hit the child, the prosecution's case was built on circumstantial evidence.

He said it was not correct to infer that Cabral struck the child with a belt on the basis of her admission that she accidentally struck the child with a stick.

Such a conclusion was based on Dr. Cunningham's opinion which, Mr. Ward said, lacked certainty.