Construction magnate Charles (Carmel) Polidano was cleared of all criminal charges after a tiger, out on a leash with handlers at his Montekristo Animal Park, had severely mauled a five-year old boy.

Mr Polidano, together with the two handlers Michael Mercieca and Muhammad Saleem, were prosecuted over the incident which had been allegedly caused through their negligence or non-observance of regulations.

The zoo owner was also separately charged with running an unlicensed animal park, keeping wild animals that were not allowed in Malta, as well as with recidivism.

The unfortunate incident had taken place on a Sunday afternoon back in November 2015 when the young boy was enjoying an outing to the park with his grandfather. 

The police should request the inquiring magistrate to bring the inquiry to a close once it deems there to be sufficient evidence to press charges

He had just stepped off a carousel, when he ran towards the tiger which had been taken out of its cage because it was unwell and was being kept on a metal leash by two handlers.

The animal had lashed out at the boy, causing him lacerations to his face and head which necessitated an emergency intervention at Mater Dei Hospital.

The incident had sparked off a magisterial inquiry, with the police pressing charges in June 2017, almost two years after the incident and justifying this delay by stating that they had waited for the inquiry to be terminated.

The court, presided over by magistrate Joseph Mifsud, questioned this delay, stating that the police should request the inquiring magistrate to bring the inquiry to a close once it deems there to be sufficient evidence to press charges.

The court also observed that the accused had reached an out-of-court settlement with the boy’s family, who were consequently no longer interested in the criminal proceedings. This fact was also to be considered when calibrating punishment, the court observed. 

The Veterinary Services had not even inspected the park on the day of the incident to confirm all the animal allegedly kept there

Turning to the evidence at hand, the court pointed out that the prosecution had failed to exhibit a list of all the animals allegedly making up the zoo, but had only presented photos of the tiger.

“So how should one expect the court to convict a person of keeping an unlicensed zoo if no one bothered to draw up a list of the animals…?” magistrate Mifsud said, adding that the Veterinary Services had not even inspected the park on the day of the incident to confirm all the animal allegedly kept there.

Nor did the prosecution prove that the allegedly unlicensed zoo had been kept in operation for more than seven days, in terms of law, the court continued.

Moreover, at the time of the incident the relative legislation regarding the owning and keeping of dangerous animals had not yet entered into effect.

The prosecution had not sufficiently proved that the tiger had been let out of its cage under the instructions of the zoo owner, Mr Polidano. As for Mr Mercieca, one of the handlers, no criminal responsibility was proved in his regard.

The other co-accused, Mr Saleem, who was actually handling the animal at the time of the incident, was declared guilty and conditionally discharged for three years, with the court commenting that he ought to have been more careful when handling the tiger outside the cage and within reach of the public.

The man was also ordered to shoulder one third of court expert expenses.

Lawyers Jean Paul Sammut, Mark Vassallo and Edward Gatt were counsel to Mr Polidano and Mr Saleem.

Lawyer Albert Zerafa was counsel to Mr Mercieca.