A man who was fined €2,000 after being found guilty of sexually harassing a female employee at the workplace, has had his punishment confirmed on appeal by a court which declared that the man had taken advantage of the woman’s ‘fragility and vulnerability.’

The 62-year old offender was prosecuted for having used inappropriate language and attempted several unwanted sexual advances in respect of the woman and her sister who were both his subordinates.

In the course of the proceedings, it transpired that the woman used to confide in him about her family problems. The man allegedly showered her with gifts, including an iPhone, gave her financial help and regularly offered her lifts home, making sexual requests in return.

The court of appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, upon the evidence produced concluded that the decision by the Magistrates’ Court convicting the accused, had indeed been “safe and satisfactory.”

Referring to EU Directives on Gender Equality, particularly the 2006 Gender Recast Directive, the court observed that “any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” which violated a person’s dignity or created “an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” amounted to sexual harassment.

In this case, it was clear that the accused’s advances had been unwanted by his female subordinate and had been ‘against her will,” the court observed.

During the proceedings, the man had neither testified nor brought forward other witnesses to contradict the version supplied by the victim and her sister.

The accused’s only version had been that released under police interrogation, wherein he denied the accusation but admitted that the two were friends who used to confide their personal troubles to each other.

The man had also explained how the woman’s boyfriend had once threatened to spill the beans by sending her audio recordings allegedly shedding light upon the accused’s unwanted advances.

The latter had allegedly handed over some €10,000 to the woman’s boyfriend but had never reported the matter to the police because he feared the possible consequences.

The court, concluding that all evidence pointed towards guilt, rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment declaring that the man had preyed upon the ‘fragility and vulnerability’ of the victim when she turned towards him, confiding in him her personal problems only to be met with behaviour that did not become his position as principal.