Malta’s courts handle plenty of cases every day.  Some make headlines, some don’t.

One that did make it to the newsreels this week was a sexual harassment case, where the accused pleaded guilty and was handed a suspended prison sentence.

What stood out in this case however was not the offence per se, but rather the fact that the court ordered the banning of the publication of the name of the accused. 

Court reporting from the case shows that the accused, a 59-year-old man from Switzerland, was a politically exposed person and his identification could have a serious impact on his career.

It’s a decision which prompted plenty of question marks – foremost of which is to ask why the court feels it has a responsibility to order the concealment of the identity of a sexual harasser in order to protect that same harasser’s career.

It is indeed a valid question, particularly as the case in question shows a level of pre-meditation.

The victim was a cleaner at the hotel that the accused was staying at with his family. She was cleaning the accused’s hotel room when the accused asked for a coffee, which she duly brought for him.  When the victim finished cleaning the accused’s room, the accused then asked her for a bottle of water, and when the victim returned with the said bottle, she found the accused naked in the room.

The man then grabbed her and began kissing her neck and face.  Luckily, the victim managed to escape and report the guest to the hotel’s HR department who then called the authorities.

He was charged with subjecting the woman to sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances, and with attempting to use force against her – charges to which he pleaded guilty.

It is a case which may well have ended up being more serious had the victim not managed to escape the accused’s room.

The Maltese courts, unfortunately, handles a significant number of such sexual harassment cases and also sexual assault cases and it is rare, unless the case involves minors or family members, to see names be banned from publication in such a manner.

Usually when the name of the accused party is banned from publication, there is a valid reason behind it – but to ban the name of a person found guilty to potentially serious charges just to preserve that person’s career is stretching realms of what should constitute a ‘valid reason.’

Yes there would be consequences to the man’s career, but he should have thought about those consequences before trying to force himself onto a woman.

With such a justification, why should the career of someone who is politically exposed be considered in the eyes of the court as being somehow more important than the career of any other person accused of a crime?  Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

The court’s duty is not to protect those guilty of a crime from the consequences of their own actions, but it is to protect society at large from the illegal actions of others.

As things stand this man has been given a slap on the wrist and a second chance.  The victim, by strength of a restraining order, has been protected – but who is protecting other women who have to come in contact with this person, unbeknownst of his actions?

Sometimes there is a greater responsibility at hand.  One can only hope that this man has learned his lesson and that no other woman will have to go through what the victim had to go through at his hands.