Repeat sex offender dubbed 'threat to society' charged with sexual assault

A 66-year-old serial sex offender has been charged with having molested an intellectually disabled young man. Described in court as a “threat to society,” the man, had already been convicted of sexually abusing last year.

The case raises legal issues relating to the absence of a concept of diminished responsibility under Maltese law as well as the possible need for a “halfway house” for defendants for whom imprisonment is unsuitable, but who still require confinement.

Anthony Pirotta from Qormi appeared in the dock before magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo on Wednesday, accused of committing a sexual act of a non-consensual nature on the 22-year-old man, subjecting him to an unwelcome act of physical intimacy and slightly injuring him. Pirotta was also charged with offending public morals in a public place, and breaching a probation order handed to him in April last year.

Police Inspector John Spiteri, one of the prosecuting officials, gave the court an overview of what had led to the man’s arrest, explaining how yesterday the alleged victim, who was described as a vulnerable disabled person, who suffered from psychological problems, had filed a report with the police.

The 22-year-old, who had already been sexually abused by the accused while still a minor, had told officers that while he had been getting off the bus, he had been spotted by the accused, who had proceeded to follow and pester him in the street. The victim said that Pirotta had grabbed his private parts and his bottom and had made sexual overtures.

The shocked and confused victim had filed a report at the police station and had been treated at a polyclinic for the injuries which he had suffered as a result of the encounter.

An arrest warrant was duly issued and the police took the accused into custody.

Asked by defence lawyer Franco Debono as to who had carried out the arrest, Inspector James Mallia replied that he had done so himself, adding that he had handed the accused a copy of the warrant and informed him of the reasons for his arrest.

Moments after the lawyer suggested that the accused was also afflicted by mental illness, Pirotta interrupted the proceedings from the dock telling the inspector in a loud voice that the victim had “offended me, insulting my mother and father.”

While the court registrar was asking Pirotta his details, the defendant appeared to take offence at being asked his father’s name, a standard question asked during every arraignment, testily replying “why don’t I go raise him from his grave now?”

A not-guilty plea was entered on the defendant’s behalf by Debono, who also requested bail.

The prosecution objected to the bail request, with Inspector Spiteri explaining that this was not the first time that Pirotta had faced similar charges. 

“Here we have a serial sex offender,” said the police officer, explaining that this was the third time that he had appeared in court to face similar charges. “Previously the courts had observed his demeanour and ordered him to undergo treatment, but the accused had instead chosen to target a previous victim, whom he had been convicted of sexually abusing as a child. So how can the court ever have peace of mind that he will obey his bail conditions.”

“Today in order for this 22-year-old man to go to work, he had to be driven there by his mother, so great is his fear of encountering the accused again.”

Inspector Spiteri told the court that in a previous case against the accused, a psychiatrist had declared Pirotta to be capable of intending his actions, but had also highlighted “low IQ.” as an issue. 

“Can the court be assured that this man will not approach the victim again if granted bail? I believe the answer is no, because he has ignored three previous opportunities.”

“This man is a threat to society,” said the inspector, arguing that it was far too early a stage for bail to be granted.

Spiteri explained that the victim had not been brought to testify during the arraignment to avoid accusations of forum shopping, because doing so would mean that the case would have to continue before the same magistrate.

Defence lawyer Franco Debono, while emphasising the sensitivity of the case, argued that the actions which Pirotta was accused of performing were on the lower end of the spectrum of sexual assault. “We are talking about touching, let us understand what this case is about,” he submitted.

The lawyer also pointed out that the defendant also had mental health problems. “This is a classic case of diminished responsibility,” said the lawyer, describing it as a “blind spot” in Maltese Criminal Law, which only considers defendants as being sane or insane, with no degrees of either in between. 

He asked the court to appoint a psychiatrist to treat the accused, together with a supervision order should bail be granted.

Debono insisted that modern technology could permit the victim to testify remotely, “In this hall?” Unlikely,” quipped the magistrate.  A ban on the publication of the name of the accused was also requested at this stage.

Replying to the defence submissions, Inspector Spiteri rebutted the “mere touching” argument, telling the court that “this mere touch had sent the victim on a three-month sojourn in a mental health institution.”

Pirotta had already taken advantage of diminished responsibility and had failed to abide by previous probation and treatment orders in 2015, argued the inspector.

The prosecution also disagreed with the request for the ban on the publication of the accused’s name, arguing that publishing the man’s name could encourage other victims of his to come forward.

Quoting from the man’s most recent sentence, which declared him to be suffering from “mild retardation,” Debono drew the attention of the court to the fact that the defendant was, in his words, “simple.” 

Stressing he was trying to be sensitive to the victim’s plight, Debono invited the court to “also be sensitive to that of the accused.”

“If there is some treatment which can cure him of this, I strongly hope he takes it,” concluded the lawyer.

After hearing the parties’ submissions, the court said it was denying the bail request due to the seriousness of the crimes with which the defendant was being charged, together with the fact that the alleged victim had not yet testified, as well as in view of the character of the accused.

The court also turned down the defence’s request to order a ban on the publication of the man’s name, pointing out that there was no family link between him and the victim. The court, however, did impose a ban on the publication of the name of the alleged victim.

Police Inspectors John Spiteri, and James Mallia prosecuted, together with lawyers Kaylie Bonnett and Cynthia Tomasuolo from the Office of the Attorney General.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri assisted the defendant.