Elder abuse offence needs a duty of care, not just age

The Court of Criminal Appeal, sitting in its inferior jurisdiction, decided Il-Pulizija vs P.J. on 26 May 2026. Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera held that the offence of making an elderly person or dependent adult suffer, under article 257C of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta), was not made out against a son who lived with his parents. The court acquitted him of that charge and reduced his prison term from three years and four months to 18 months.

The facts

The appellant lived with his parents, both over 60. Over several months they went to the police a number of times, saying he constantly asked them for money, woke them at night and left them at times sleeping in their car to avoid trouble at home. At first they did not want him prosecuted, but in October 2025 they agreed that the police should proceed.

He was charged with violence, including psychological violence, under article 251, causing fear of violence under article 251B, harassment under article 251A, making elderly persons suffer under article 257C and insults or threats under article 339(1)(e). He was also charged with offending during a probation order made on 10 October 2024, and with being a recidivist.

On 15 December 2025 the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature found him guilty on every charge except recidivism. It sentenced him to three years and four months' imprisonment.

What the court held

The appellant argued that his parents' evidence did not prove any charge, pointing to his mother's testimony that she was not afraid of him and that he had never touched her. The court reviewed the evidence under the rule that it does not disturb the first court's findings if that court could reach them legally and reasonably.

On article 251, the court found that the appellant was a domestic member under the Domestic Violence Act because he lived with his parents, and that his repeated demands for money caused them psychological harm. Police reports he never contested, and the evidence of his probation officer, supported the parents' account.

On article 251B, the court held that the fear must arise on more than one occasion, close in time, as a course of conduct, judged by a reasonable person in the victim's position. The months of reports met that test. The court also found the harassment charge under article 251A and the threats charge under article 339(1)(e) proved.

Article 257C was different. The parents' birth certificates proved they were over 60, but the court held that the pain or mental suffering, and the harm the conduct was likely to cause, are material elements of the offence. It was not of the view that the appellant's conduct was such as to cause harm to his parents or their death, and noted that the first court gave no reasons on this charge.

The court added that the charge did not fit the case. Drawing on the parliamentary debates on Act XXI of 2014, it held: "dan ir-reat huwa maħsub għall-protezzjoni tal-persuna anzjana jew adult dipendenti minn abbuż da parti tal-persuni li jiddependu minnhom u persuni li jittrattaw ma’ dawn il-persuni vulnerabbli u jkollhom il-kura u kustodja tagħhom" (this offence is meant to protect an elderly person or dependent adult from abuse by those they depend on and those who deal with these vulnerable persons and have their care and custody).

The court acquitted him under article 257C, left the other findings and the acquittal on recidivism in place, and reduced the penalty to 18 months' effective imprisonment. On the breach of probation, it revoked the first court's penalty and, under article 23(1)(b) of the Probation Act (Chapter 446), sent him back to the court that made the order to be dealt with for the original offences.

Why it matters

Prosecutors should not add an article 257C charge to every domestic case where the victim is over 60. The court read the offence as requiring a relationship of dependence or care and custody, together with the harm the article describes, and defence lawyers can test the charge on both points.

Where parents endure months of demands at home, articles 251, 251A and 251B remain available, and the police reports filed along the way can prove the course of conduct.

Where it sits

Articles 251A and 251B were modelled on the English Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and both require a course of conduct rather than a single incident. For that requirement the court cited the Court of Criminal Appeal of 24 April 2009 and 21 February 2012. On the importance of the background to each incident it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal of 21 June 2007, and on harassment the Court of Criminal Appeal of 14 May 2012.

On the duty of care under article 257C, the court relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal of 17 September 2019. On threats under article 339(1)(e), it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal of 7 July 1995 and 12 June 2003. On review of penalty, it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) of 19 May 2011 and the Court of Criminal Appeal of 26 January 2001.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 892/2025/1, 26 May 2026.