Appeal court suspends two-year prison term for Mater Dei worker convicted of sexual harassment

A 56-year-old former nurse convicted over a string of sexual offences and harassment incidents involving another colleague at Mater Dei had his jail term suspended on Tuesday, but a €15,000 fine will still stand.

In a decision delivered on Tuesday, an appeal was heard from a 13 October 2025 judgment which had found the appellant guilty of five charges arising from conduct alleged to have taken place in June 2016 and in the months and years before.

The man had been charged, among other offences, with an attempted indecent assault aggravated by the fact that it was allegedly committed while he was making use of his position as a public officer, sexual harassment at the workplace, offending public morality, and behaviour amounting to harassment and stalking. The prosecution also requested a protection order.

The first court had acquitted the man of two out of the seven charges, imposing an overall sentence of two years’ imprisonment and a €15,000 fine, and ordered him to pay €1,556.59 in court expenses.

The victim and the accused both worked at Mater Dei, where she alleged, she had received a number of messages on her pager, which she found harassing.

She also alleged that on one occasion the accused locked his office door and asked her to expose her breasts, and on another occasion, he touched her breast under her top. The victim further alleged that he exposed his private parts, rubbed himself against her back and asked her to perform sexual acts on him.

The accused denied the allegations, arguing they were motivated by jealousy and claiming she held a grudge because he had progressed in his career while she had not. He also suggested the situation escalated after he refused to do her a favour at work unless she made a written report about colleagues.

The defence argued that the €15,000 fine was outside the legal parameters, contending the relevant provision carried a maximum fine of €10,000, and that the other charges carried imprisonment rather than a fine. The court rejected the argument, noting that the conduct related to 2016 and that the penalty provision had been amended in 2018.

It also disagreed that the other convictions could not carry a fine, and held that the first court was entitled to impose a cumulative penalty, with the overall €15,000 fine being within what the first court could lawfully order given the combination of offences.

Moreover, the defence claimed the magistrates’ court had mis appreciated the evidence and criticised the investigation, arguing among other things that the messages produced were not the “best evidence”, that CCTV footage should have been obtained, and that there were contradictions in the victim’s testimony.

He also argued that the victim could send messages from her own pager and that the accused’s office setting made the alleged indecent acts implausible.

The appeal court reiterated the principle that it will not disturb the first court’s assessment of evidence unless it could not have reasonably and legally reached its conclusions. It also recalled that a conviction may follow on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is believed. Having reviewed the record, the court held the victim’s version was consistent in substance and corroborated by other witnesses and material, including the pager messages themselves.

The court noted the accused’s explanations about the content and meaning of the messages shifted over time and were inconsistent. It also observed that the access report indicated there were no CCTV cameras in the areas where the acts were alleged to have occurred. While one colleague testified positively about the accused, the court remarked that good conduct towards one person did not rule out misconduct towards another.

Ultimately, the court concluded the magistrates’ court was entitled to accept the victim’s evidence and find guilt.

The appeal succeeded only on the third ground, which challenged the severity of the sentence. While confirming the convictions, the court took into account the appellant’s clean criminal record and the findings of a social inquiry report, which indicated he enjoyed strong family support and was employed in a stable profession. Without minimising the seriousness of the offences, the court held there should be “temperament” in the two-year prison term.

For these reasons, the court revoked the effective two-year imprisonment and replaced it with a two-year prison sentence suspended for four years. The court confirmed that the remainder of the magistrates’ court judgment, including the fine and the other orders, still stand.

The names of both the accused and the victim were banned from being published.

Mr Justice Neville Camilleri presided over the sitting, defence lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Adreana Zammit represented the accused.