A man who stands accused of assaulting his parents, expressed concern about being unable to feed his animals when a court denied him bail on Tuesday.

He was arraigned over the umpteenth incident at his parents’ home where he and his three children live, the court was told.

The distraught couple, in their sixties, reported the assault to the domestic violence unit, explaining their reluctance to do so but claiming that they had no other option.

The accused suffers an apparent anger management problem. Whenever he wanted something and his parents refused to comply, he became violent and physically assaulted them, prosecuting Inspector Sherona Buhagiar said during the arraignment. 

He was accused of assault, slightly injuring his mum and causing her and his father to fear violence. He pleaded not guilty. 

Asked by his legal aid lawyer whether he had a job, the accused said that his contract had been terminated and he lapsed into depression.

His lawyer, Victor Bugeja, subsequently informed the court that the accused was under psychiatric treatment.

A request for bail was objected to by the prosecution, primarily in view of the fear of tampering with evidence.

Although at the arraignment the accused said that he had an alternative address, during the previous police interrogation he had said that he had nowhere else to stay.

Had he provided an alternative address, he would have been granted police bail and charged later under summons, the inspector explained.

Moreover, the accused kept some animals at his parents’ home and would go there if released from arrest, argued the inspector.

“It’s cruel not to feed them. They’re show cockerels. They help me with my depression. It’s not right. I have a clean conduct sheet,” complained the accused. “They will all die. They were my only source of income,” fretted the accused, hand on face, as he moaned about his pet animals

But after hearing submissions the court, presided over by magistrate Leonard Caruana, denied bail at this stage since civilian witnesses still have to testify.

The court upheld the prosecution’s request for a protection order in favour of the accused’s parents. The accused was placed under a treatment order for all the psychiatric and psychological help he needed.

The court banned publication of the name of the accused.