A handyman at a care home has been cleared of sexually abusing a vulnerable resident while driving her to a health centre, and a court suggested on Tuesday that residents ought to be “chaperoned” on such outings.

Homes offering such services to persons with intellectual or physical disabilities which rendered them vulnerable, would be wiser by taking all necessary precautions, observed the magistrate, adopting a suggestion made by a psychiatrist.

The court also stressed that the acquittal did not mean that a person with an intellectual disability lacked credibility as a witness. In this case, the acquittal stemmed from the fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It all started five years ago when two brothers accompanied their vulnerable sister to Paola police station to report that on several occasions a maintenance worker/driver at the residential home touched their sister indecently.

The woman claimed that the 66-year old suspect had slipped his hand under her top and touched her thighs as she sat next to him in the front passenger seat during the ride from the home to the health clinic where she was due for blood tests.

The man denied the allegation even when confronted by the management at the home in the presence of the alleged victim and her brothers.

Police investigations resulted in criminal proceedings.

The manager at the home testified that on the day of the alleged incident the woman appeared to act normally when she returned from her medical visit.

It was not the first time that the alleged victim was caught lying, but that was the first time she had made such serious claims. The manager said that the victim failed to grasp the notion of boundaries and was attracted towards strangers.

The manager said that when she was questioned by management, her brothers had “pressured her [the victim]” to confirm her allegations and one of them threatened her physically, saying they did not wish to make fools of themselves when reporting the matter to the police.

The woman eventually testified in court via video link.

She claimed that when she told the accused that she would report him to management, he warned her not to tell anyone.

She said she had not spoken up immediately after she was first molested because she feared that her brothers would physically confront the accused. She decided to report after the fifth time.

She never experienced any trouble with other staff members at the home.

The woman confirmed that the accused would buy her sweets whenever she asked him to.

A psychiatrist tasked to examine the alleged victim said that she was consistent in her version. The woman could distinguish between good and bad and understood the meaning of telling the truth.

She was angry, nervous and confused after the alleged incident.

When delivering judgment, Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit said that the case pivoted upon the credibility of the alleged victim and whether her version was corroborated by other evidence.

There were certain inconsistencies in her testimony which rather gave rise to doubt.

When testifying, the woman first referred to “my hand” then “his hand,” confirming it was the accused’s hand when questioned by the court.

It seemed rather difficult if not impossible for the driver to slip one hand under the woman’s top while driving.

The woman also claimed that the accused wanted to show her his private part. She had reacted saying, “I don’t want to see it, how rude.”

Later, the man told police that even had he wanted to, he could not do what the woman alleged because of a physical disability.

That factor rather “convincingly” contradicted the alleged victim’s version and “raised some doubt,” observed the magistrate.

Moreover, the accused said that he had asked the alleged victim to sit at the back but she insisted on sitting in front next to him.

After assessing all the evidence, the court concluded that the alleged victim’s version was inconsistent and not corroborated. The court therefore could not pronounce a conviction.

However the court stressed that the acquittal was not due to the alleged victim’s mental disability. Nor was the court saying that such an intellectually vulnerable person lacked credibility.

Citing a scientific study based on certain intellectual disorders, the court stressed that the accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, just as a psychiatrist suggested, the court recommended that such residents should be accompanied by a chaperone when taken for medical appointments.

By taking such wise precautions, care homes would benefit not only the residents but also those staff members working at such facilities.

Lawyer Roberto Montalto was defence counsel.