Man remanded in custody, accused of molesting young boy at Mosta shop

A man has been remanded in custody after being accused of molesting a young boy at a shop in Mosta on Saturday.

Inspectors Godwin Scerri and Dorienne Tabone, together with prosecutor Cynthia Tomasuolo from the Office of the Attorney General arraigned 55-year-old Chinese citizen Zhou Jiankang on charges of committing a non-consensual sexual act on a vulnerable nine-year-old Maltese boy inside the Mosta department store last Saturday.

Jiankang was also accused of corruption of a minor, slightly injuring the boy, holding him against his will so as to force him to perform acts offensive to his dignity, subjecting the child to unwanted acts of a sexual nature, causing the victim to fear that violence would be used against him. Jiankang was additionally charged with working in Malta without a permit.

Inspector Scerri told the court that on Thursday afternoon, the Mosta police station received a report from a woman inside a department store in the town, alleging that the shopkeeper had just touched her son’s private parts.

The inspector had visited the scene with other officers, finding the woman and the defendant there. The woman repeated the accusations in the presence of the police, he said.

“I also spoke to the boy, who was clearly scared. I asked him what happened and he repeated that the man had touched his private parts. I then watched the shop’s CCTV which confirmed what had happened,” he testified.

The footage showed the boy standing near the counter. At a point the man squatted down next to the boy, before reaching out and grabbing the child’s crotch.

Legal aid defence lawyer Martin Farrugia asked to be shown the CCTV footage, but this request was denied by the court after the prosecution retorted that no request for disclosure of the evidence against Jiankang had been made by the defence.

The court said that in view of the inspector’s sworn testimony, the footage was not necessary at this stage, which was only intended to establish the validity of the arrest. The footage would be exhibited in due course at a later stage of proceedings, added Tomasuolo.

The prosecutor argued that the defendant had been given all his rights and had consulted with another legal aid lawyer during interrogation.

“A copy of the footage was never requested by the defence. The defendant had consulted with a lawyer. He was given disclosure and was shown the footage. The inspector was present for the arrest,” submitted the prosecutor.

Farrugia’s request to cross-examine the inspector on the witness stand about the validity of the arrest was turned down by the court, which pointed out that the court was not compiling evidence at this stage, saying that it was satisfied that the arrest was carried out in accordance with the law.

The defendant, who was assisted in court by interpreters, told the court that he had no job in Malta, but worked in Italy. He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The defence lawyer requested bail, arguing that the defendant was presumed innocent at this stage and pointing out that the court had several tools at its disposal to prevent the defendant from tampering with evidence. Jiankang had a fixed address in Mosta, which although he could not recall it from memory, was saved on his mobile phone.

The prosecution objected to bail, highlighting the early stage of proceedings as well as the fact that the alleged victim had not yet testified. Jiankang’s ties to Malta were “non-existent,” argued Tomasuolo, adding that he had been unable to tell the police where he lived and his only documentation was an Italian residence permit.

Magistrate Azzopardi rejected the bail request, noting that despite the defendant’s presumption of innocence, there were eyewitnesses who are yet to testify. The fact that Jiankang had not cooperated with the police’s efforts to establish his ties to Malta and the inability to provide an address did not give the court peace of mind that he would be in a position to obey any bail conditions.

The court ordered the man not to approach or attempt to communicate with the alleged victim or his parents, in terms of a protection order which the court also issued.

The prosecution’s request for a ban on the publication of the victim’s name was also upheld.