Skip to main content

The Magistrates’ Court held in a criminal case that for harassment to succeed the prosecution have to prove that the victim has to suffer more than one incident from the same perpetrators. This was decided on 9 May 2016 by Magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras in a case against two youths, whose names have been banned. They were both charged with harassing and attacking another youth and causing damages to a car.

The Court examined the evidence where PS 115 received a report that some youths were fighting and damaged a parked car. A youth explained to the police that he was in the company of a few friends. Another group was sitting on the steps of  his grandmother’s front garden. They asked to pass, but instead were attacked. One youth received a slight injury on his eye. 

The owner of the car testified that he heard his car alarm. He also heard noise coming from the street. When he went out he saw two of his doors hit. An off duty police officer informed him that some youths were fighting.

An eyewitness described what happened. They were on a front garden watching a DVD on a laptop. They were approached by a group of youths, included the two accused and one hit another. This witness confirmed that the car did suffer some damage. The victim confirmed this version of events and identified one of the accused as the person who hit him. 

The accused testifying. They explained that the victim had told them to lower the volume of music they were playing and to joke they refused. This angered the victim and attacked them. The victim threatened to smash the car parked. One of the accused held that he hit the victim in self defence. 

Magistrate Galea Sciberras held that according to English and Maltese caselaw, harassment can take the form of words or actions. The prosecution must prove a course of conduct. In a previous judgement Il-Pulizija –v- Massimo Tivisini of 27 February 2009, the Court of criminal appeal held that this consists of repetitive and persistent action and not in isolation. In Il-Pulizija –v- Raymond Parnis of 24 April 2009, there must be at least two occasions. The Court immediately pointed out that in this case there exists one incident and therefore no course of conduct has been proved. As a result the accused were declared not guilty of the charge of harassment.

As regard to the damage caused to the car, the Court held that from the evidence produced the victim held that he was pushed on the car, while one of the accused held that he was not involved in the fight and moved away. A eye witness confirmed that the victim was pushed on the car but could not identity who pushed him. However, the Court believed that the accused were responsible, because the victim identified the shoes of one of the accused and the other involved in the fight directly. 

The Court found that one of the accused caused the victim a slight bodily harm by hitting him on the face, while the other was guilty of a contravention from attacking the victim. 

As for the punishment, the court took into consideration that the damages on the case were paid. One of the accused was fined €85 and another was given a formal warning.

Av. Malcolm Mifsud


Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates

This article can also be accessed on Malta Today.

For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.