A 77-year-old woman was handed a two-year jail term suspended for four years for causing the death of her 90-year-old flatmate who had dementia through her negligence in what a court expert described as “one of the worst cases” of neglect he had seen in 35 years.

In a strong-worded judgment, Magistrate Nadine Lia criticised the medical professionals who saw the man – even days before he died - for not intervening.

Penelope Davies was found guilty of causing the death of Ernest Frederick Thompson who died in their St Paul’s Bay home on June 24, 2020.

Magistrate Lia heard how Thompson’s cause of death was pneumonia which was left untreated. His body was covered in bedsores and ulcers which showed that he “suffered neglect and it was the motivating factor that led to his death”.

The magistrate heard how Davies, from the UK, said she met Thompson in the UK in 2007 in church.

A woman told her she found him wandering the streets after being kicked out by his daughter. Davies said she took him in for some days in her house in the UK but then, when she wanted to return to Malta, he wished to join.

She said their relationship was platonic – they lived together and bought a house in St Paul’s Bay together.

She denied the accusation of neglect and rebutted that she did everything for him including washing, dressing, feeding and changing his nappies and his catheter.

On the day he died, she had been asleep and when she went to his room to check his nappy and catheter, she found him dead and called for a doctor.

She said she placed his mattress on the floor because she feared he would roll off the bed.

The doctor, who found the body on a mattress on the floor, informed the police and a magisterial inquiry followed. Dr Mario Scerri, who was appointed expert as part of the inquiry, said the body displayed evidence of personal neglect and it was “actually one of the worst cases which he saw in a 35-year career”.

The lacerations indicated that he had been left in the same position for a very long period of time.

He explained that after reviewing Thompson’s medical file, it resulted that he had a long history of illness and since 2019, intellectually lost recognition and displayed signs of dementia and was not in a position to care for himself.

He was hospitalised on various occasions and used to attend the Mosta Health Centre regularly between 2015 and February 2020.

There were no indications that any doctor or nurse had examined him between February 2020 and his death in June 2020.

A phlebotomist had gone to his house to draw blood four days before he died and Thompson had another appointment scheduled at the health centre for the day he died.

“There was evidence of gross neglect, bed sores and a bad state of hygiene,” Scerri said.

The magistrate noted that from the conclusions of the inquiry, it also resulted that Thompson had made a will leaving all his universal inheritance to Davies.

“From a simple visual examination of the photos in this report… one can see open wounds, sores and ulcers which must have been considerably painful and uncomfortable.

"These wounds are all over the deceased’s body. From the photos it is also possible to see how frail and weak the body was at the time of death.

"It is also clear that the wounds were left untreated and open giving rise to infection and an inability to heal. The court also cannot not express that it found these images disturbing… From the autopsy report, the same graphic images are available in close up and it is clear that the deceased must have suffered before his death,” the court ruled.

The magistrate ruled that the regular visits to the Mosta Health Centre and the phlebotomist's visit before his death showed there was some level of care by the defendant.

“The court is somewhat perplexed how the bad state of Thompson was not brought to the attention of the medical professionals and equally how these professionals themselves did not observe and treat his wounds and lacerations which are large and evident."

The magistrate added that while it was commendable for any person to take on the singular care of any person, that also meant that the person was assuming responsibility for their welfare and placing them at their mercy.

“While one can appreciate that for the defendant, taking care of the [Thompson] alone was hard and complex, this was also her singular choice since she chose not to get more hands-on help…The court considers that the defendant was the carer of Thompson and the fact that she was not formally renumerated or employed is not a valid argument.”