70-year-old man loses appeal against conviction for attacking four prison officers

An elderly man who attacked a number of prison guards after an administrative mix-up meant that he could not bring food to his jailed son has lost his appeal from a suspended sentence.

John Bartolo, 70, had been charged with attacking and violently resisting four prison officers, slightly injuring one, swearing in public and breaching the peace, amongst others following the incident which took place in 2018.

In September 2019, a Court of Magistrates found Bartolo guilty and sentenced him to nine months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, together with a fine of €4,100.

Bartolo’s lawyer, David Gatt, had argued that the man had not gone to the facility looking for trouble, but had only wanted to deliver food to his incarcerated son. 

Inspector Paul Camilleri, prosecuting, said that the trouble started when Bartolo had been turned away from delivering the food, because he was not on the list of people expected to deliver food that day, although he had been allowed to visit his son first.

This was due to an oversight which meant that he had not been given and had not filled in the necessary forms prior to his visit. The officer who had handled the application was off work that day and could not be contacted.

The man had refused to accept this situation and caused a commotion, swearing and banging on tables, demanding that the duty officer contact the one who had handled the application.

Special Response Team officers were dispatched to subdue the elderly man. While they were escorting him from the building, he had started kicking the guards and had to be handcuffed and transported to the Paola police station.

Bartolo had told the police that it was 10 guards against one and that he had been provoked by the guards, one of whom had allegedly put his hand in front of Bartolo’s face.

The septuagenarian, whose lawyer pointed out was "not Bruce Lee", had also allegedly threatened to gouge out the eyes of one of the officers with a key he was holding.

He explained that he had been dragged outside in full view of his grandchildren, aged three and six, who were waiting in the car. He was told that they would be taken “to Appogg,” he said.

Bartolo’s lawyer made the point that he had not cooked and then driven all the way to prison with the intention of creating a disturbance and had been upset by the insensitivity of the officials he had spoken to.

Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, in her judgment on the appeal, noted that the man had not proven that the officials had used excessive force to subdue him.

Making copious references to case law, the judge said that the man could not be found guilty of attacking three of the correctional officers, as although there were threats, insults and blasphemy, these did not constitute the offences with which he was charged under the Criminal Code.

But the same could not be said with regards the officer from the SRT who had been dispatched to calm down the situation and who was kicked by the accused whilst trying to restrain him.

Noting that the sentence was already minimal, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original judgment and issuing a three-year protection order in favour of the four prison officers involved.