Swiss PEP who admitted sexually harassing cleaner is to have his case reheard
The accused argued that he was not given time to reconsider his plea
A man who admitted to sexually harassing a hotel cleaner and was handed a two-year suspended sentence is to have his case heard all over again.
The Court of Criminal Appeal on Wednesday upheld the appeal by the 59-year-old Swiss, who argued that he had not been given enough time to reconsider his admission.
During the proceedings the court banned publication of the accused man’s name on the basis that he is a politically exposed person, and the incident could have a serious impact on his career.
Police inspector Kelsey Bugeja had testified that a cleaner at the Corinthia St George's Bay hotel was cleaning the man’s room on a Sunday morning when he asked for a coffee. She brought it to him, finished cleaning the room and began cleaning the opposite room. The man followed her out and requested a bottle of water.
The woman returned to his room with the water and found him naked. When she tried to leave, he grabbed her and began kissing her neck and face. She eventually managed to get out and reported the guest to the hotel’s HR department.
The man was arraigned on August 4, when he pleaded guilty.
Following his guilty plea, he filed an appeal on August 20 requesting that the judgment be quashed and sent back before the Court of Magistrates. He claimed an irregularity in the proceedings since the court of first instance did not follow the procedure as provided for in the Criminal Code.
The Code provides that when a person pleads guilty, the court shall warn him about the legal consequences of that reply and allow him time to reconsider. After he is given time to reconsider, the person can change his plea without any consequences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal analysed the minutes of the case, which recorded that the man personally replied that he was guilty of the charges brought against him, and that he confirmed his guilt after the court explained the consequences of his admission. The Court of Criminal Appeal observed that nowhere in the minutes did it result that he was given time to reconsider his admission of guilt.
It then referred to a previous judgement in which the Court of Criminal Appeal had stated that the Court of Magistrates has to scrupulously adhere to the relevant provisions in such cases, including registering the admission, registering that the accused was given time to reconsider, and solemnly warning him of the legal consequences of his reply.
The minutes of the case did not record that the man was given time to reconsider his admission.
The appeals court therefore upheld the grievance. It sent the records of the case back to the Court of Magistrates, placing the accused in the same position he was before the court of first instance handed down the suspended sentence.
It also made it clear that the man is not being treated as a person under arrest, but as a person who has been arraigned under summons.
Mr Justice Neville Camilleri presided over the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lawyer Joe Giglio was defence counsel.