A court has cleared a professional masseur of accusations of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a female client without her consent.

The man, whose personal details have been banned from publication by the court, was arrested in May 2019, hours after having provided his services to a woman at a boutique hotel in the southern part of the island.

That afternoon the masseur had turned up punctually at the hotel to deliver the 75-minute, full body massage at his client’s hotel room, this apparently being normal practice when the lodging did not have its own massage parlour.

The woman later explained that she had no problem with the massage being given by a male therapist, admitting she had experienced such services previously.

She had been slightly hesitant, however, when she was told by the hotel that the massage was to take place inside her room, but had accepted in order to avoid paying a cancellation fee.

The court was told that the masseur arrived at 1pm, finding his client in her bathrobe over her underwear.

The massage table was set up and the session kicked off, with the masseur applying his hands to her back, while she lay face down, before he moved down to her legs.

It was there that the situation became “a little bit weird,” with the woman explaining that almost every time the masseur rubbed her foot up her leg, he touched her private area, over her underwear.

Yet the session progressed, with the client choosing to keep her eye mask on, as the masseur moved on to her upper chest, stomach and legs.

The woman alleged that the man massaged her breasts and slipped his hands inside her underwear.

At some point, while lying facing down, she said, “please, no!” to which the masseur had replied, “Sorry.”

As the session came to an end, the masseur packed his things, exchanged a few words with his client, asking her about her nationality and whether she feared travelling alone, before shaking hands and leaving.

Minutes later, the woman went down at the reception desk and, accompanied by the hotel manager went to the police station to file a report.

The police arrested the masseur a few hours later and later arraigned him. He pleaded not guilty to non-consensual sexual acts.

Throughout the proceedings, he described himself as a happily married freelance massage therapist, with work experience both locally and abroad, and a “perfect” track record.

He categorically denied all of the woman’s allegations, saying they were “absolutely not true,” whilst admitting that he might have accidentally touched the sides of her underwear in the normal course of the procedure.

Faced with the woman’s claim that things were “a little bit weird,” the accused had rebutted, saying, “maybe it was in her imagination or whatever but from my side there was nothing weird.”

Moreover, he pointed out that the client had never stopped the massage. When she said something he had not quite understood, he replied, “sorry,” thinking that he might have put too much pressure.

He also denied massaging the woman's breasts, insisting that “normal procedure” on the upper part of the body did not include the breasts.

Two other former female clients of the accused testified, describing him as a “serious professional” who was good at his work.

The accused’s wife also testified, insisting that she still trusted him, adding, “I know him well enough.”

When weighing all the evidence, Magistrate Gabriella Vella observed that the two persons who could provide direct proof of what had actually taken place inside the hotel room were the alleged victim and accused himself.

Since they had given opposing versions, the court had to consider their demeanour, character, consistency, the circumstances of the case as well as other evidence.

The court observed that the prosecution’s case had hinged upon “one single occurrence, or rather on one single word that is the word ‘sorry’, said by the accused in reply to something, purportedly the words, ‘please, no.”

The court said that it was “not at all satisfied” that the prosecution had proved its case, and that “sorry” could not be considered as “unequivocal” proof of the accused’s guilt.

Moreover, certain facts alleged by the woman, did not add up.

The fact that the client had not removed her eye mask throughout the massage, appeared to indicate that she was relaxed and “comfortable with the situation.”

It also seemed “totally inconsistent” that she had subsequently replied to the man’s small talk.

Moreover, the court pointed out that there had been inconsistencies in the woman's version as given to the police and her version under cross-examination in court.

All in all, the court felt “more convinced” of the accused’s version that he might have only accidentally touched the sides of the woman’s underwear.

The court thus cleared him of all criminal liability.

Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Michael Tanti-Dougall were defence counsel.