Court turns down request by cat killer for psychological test before judgment

A court has rejected a request by a man who admitted killing cats in Sliema to appoint a psychological expert before judgment is handed down.

Okamura Satoshi had been sentenced in October to two years in jail and banned from owning animals for 40 years after he admitted killing animals and causing them to suffer unnecessary pain. He also admitted to slightly injuring two police officers.

The judgment was successfully appealed by the defence after the Court of Criminal Appeal annulled the sentence since the Magistrates' Court failed to make a specific reference to the article which created the offence in terms of which the accused was found guilty.

On Thursday, before magistrate Kevan Azzopardi, the defence repeated its request that a psychological expert be appointed to assess Satoshi.

Police inspector Elliot Magro observed that the Court of Magistrates, presided by Magistrate Nadine Sant Lia, had rejected the request.

The prosecuting inspector argued that he would not have objected to such a request if that court had not rejected it.

He also highlighted that at this stage, such a request cannot be made as the Court of Criminal Appeal specifically remitted the records of the case before the Court of Magistrates to resume from the final submissions.

“However, if there is any opportunity to give the accused psychological help, then the prosecution believes that he should not be denied such an opportunity,” Magro said.

The first cat, a black and white cat, was found in a box on 7 June. Days later, a calico or 'Tal-Madonna' cat was found dead in the street. Photo: Facebook

The court referred to the judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeal and observed that the case was remitted to this court – the Court of Magistrates as presided by Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi – so that the appellant is placed in the same situation as he was before the appealed judgment was pronounced.

The court rejected the request, and the prosecution and defence were directed to make their final arguments before a judgment is handed down afresh.

Defence lawyer Adreana Zammit said that while she respected the court’s decision, she did not agree with it.

The lawyer highlighted that it was extremely uncommon for individuals with a clean criminal record, and in her client’s case, Satoshi had a previously clean conviction sheet in Malta, Japan and the UK, to be handed an effective imprisonment term.

“Unfortunately, there was a lot of media outcry which the defence believes affected the judgment handed down by the court,” the defence lawyer argued, before referring to the pre-sentencing report conclusions.

Referring to the pre-sentencing report, the lawyer then focused on the second set of charges relating to injuring the police officers and said that from the report it emerged that it was physically impossible for what was being alleged. The lawyer pointed out the discrepancies in the versions contained in the pre-sentencing report given by the two police officials involved.

The lawyer stressed that Satoshi, a foreigner in Malta, could not tell that the individuals who arrested him were indeed police officers since they were in plainclothes and failed to identify themselves. Since the accused admitted to the charges during his arraignment, no evidence has been heard except for a probation officer who testified on the pre-sentencing report when previously presented in court.

Zammit urged the court to take into consideration Satoshi’s previously untainted criminal record and that his limited understanding that he was being arrested when handing down punishment in relation to the charges concerning the police officials.

“In this country, we believe in reformative justice. No amount of prison time is going to help this situation because if a person has a psychological issue, then this needs to be addressed for the accused to avoid repeating such offences.

"The accused has no problem with the police… He had a problem with animal cruelty, which needs to be addressed in a reformative manner,” Zammit argued,  as she referred to the pre-sentencing report, which points to the abusive past suffered by the accused.

The lawyer also highlighted that the law itself distinguishes between a first-time offender and a repeat offender.

“It is extremely uncommon that a person with such charges is given an effective prison term,” Zammit concluded.

The case was adjourned for judgment.

Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi presided.

Police inspector Elliot Magro prosecuted, while lawyer Adreana Zammit appeared for the accused.