Malta Philharmonic officials have admitted to sexually harassing young musicians

A senior official at the Malta Philharmonic Orchestra who admitted sexually harassing a young female orchestra musician over a period of more than three years has been given a restraining order and a suspended sentence.

A 31-year-old man, Gozitan, was accused of harassing a young woman, subjecting her to uninvited intimacy, unwanted sexual conduct and misuse of telecommunications equipment.

The man reportedly sent sexually suggestive messages to the woman and touched her inappropriately multiple times, ignoring her pleas for him to stop.This abusive behavior began in May 2019 and continues to this day.The victim, a classically trained musician, has resigned from the orchestra to avoid further contact with the man.According to the victim's friends, he sent the woman multiple sexually suggestive messages, which included inappropriate touching.The victim's friend was upset because he knew the man had previously had issues with the way he treated other members of the band.The victim's friend ultimately decided to resign and avoid further contact with the man.The man has reportedly been suspended and is under investigation.Police are seeking other possible victims so they can learn the truth about the incident and take necessary action.At this time, we are unable to determine if the man has other victims or if the abuse will continue.

Two prosecutors, Gabriel Micallef and Kevin Pulis, who are prosecuting the case, strongly objected to the defense's attempts to avoid making the case public.At the beginning of the trial, defense attorney Giannela De Marco asked that members of the public be ordered to leave the courtroom, but Micallef objected, saying he did not want the case to be closed behind closed doors as if they had something to hide.Prosecutor Micallef said, "We will not prevent the public from observing this case because this is our duty. During the legal process, every citizen has the right to know everything involved in their case. A public trial is to ensure An important step for judicial fairness and transparency." Opponents believe that a public trial may infringe on the defendant's right to privacy.They said, "While we understand the public's concerns, we believe that in order to ensure a fair and impartial judicial process, the public should be allowed to observe this case." The trial continued, and both sides launched a heated debate.Ultimately, the judge decided to continue the case but asked both sides to discuss the need for a public trial more at a future pretrial conference.

After sending reporters and members of the public out of the courtroom, presiding judge Charmaine Galea rejected the request, saying the most the court could do was suppress the publication of the names of the defendants and victims.

DeMarco told the court the defendant suffered from anxiety attacks, which led to the premature end of his music career.

Before agreeing to plead guilty, the court warned the defendant that he could face up to six months in prison and a fine of between 5000 and 10 euros.However, the court also noted that it could also impose lighter penalties.

The defense claimed the last incident occurred in July and they had not approached or communicated with the victim since then.

Civil litigant lawyer Roberto Spiteri said the result was because she blocked him on social media.

Currently, the court prohibits the disclosure of the names of the parties involved in this case, but it has encountered strong opposition from prosecutors and civil parties.Parties objecting to the injunctions claim that the defendants cannot be identified and that the victims—the people these injunctions are intended to protect—are protected from harm by the defendants.

DeMarco maintained that when she worked with the defendant, she could infer the identity of the victim from the defendant's identity.Lawyer Veronique Dalli, who also represents the defendant, added that not many people worked with him. Inspector Micallef informed the court that the victim had resigned and was no longer working with the orchestra.According to the victim's account, she felt she was physically and emotionally abused while working with the defendant.However, due to the defendant's position and DeMarco's status, she realized that no one would believe her story and no one would be able to help her.In this case, the victim's courage and testimony made a huge difference in the outcome of the case.Not only did she provide an important witness statement, but through her story she revealed the defendant's abuse of the victim.After investigation and trial, the defendant's guilt was finally determined, and the victim received justice in the case.Not only did she receive financial compensation, she also gained public attention and respect.This case also drew social attention to workplace violence and gender discrimination, providing an opportunity to improve these problems.

The court nevertheless imposed the ban, but the specific reasons for this remain unclear ("due to the offences").

In the ensuing conversation, the defendant was asked what he was praying for, and he confessed to the charges.

Inspector Preece was shown the audio-visual recording of the report submitted by the victim and the statement made by the defendant.

The court said the prosecution, civil and defense parties had reached a consensus that a prison sentence was not necessary.

After the man was found guilty, the court sentenced him to one year in prison, suspended for four years, and imposed a five-year restraining order on him.

Despite the milder verdict, DeMarco asked the court to suspend the sentence, signaling his intention to appeal the punishment.

The victim's representative stated that the man continued to try to invade her personal privacy and often touched her in an inappropriate manner, despite her resistance and verbal objections, which resulted in her having to resign from the MPO and thus give up her dream.

Sue Gabriel Micallef and Kevin Pulis.

Attorneys Giannela De Marco and Veronique Dalli are the attorneys in charge of the defence.

As lawyers in the proceedings, Ilenia Agius, Roberto Spiteri and Joseph Gatt represented the victims.