Woman refuses to testify over domestic violence
A man was yesterday cleared of breaking his wife’s nose, by repeatedly slamming her head against a wall, after a court abstained from carrying on with the case because the victim chose not to testify. The woman had withdrawn the formal report against...
A man was yesterday cleared of breaking his wife’s nose, by repeatedly slamming her head against a wall, after a court abstained from carrying on with the case because the victim chose not to testify.
The woman had withdrawn the formal report against her husband and Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera acquitted him.
The man had been charged with seriously injuring his wife at the office of their bar in St Paul’s Bay.
Prosecuting Inspector Therese Sciberras testified that on August 17, 2006, the woman went to the St Paul’s Bay police station and reported that on August 2 she had an argument with her husband over a business issue and he slammed her face against a wall.
She went to hospital and was found to have broken cartilage in her nose, which had gone crooked.
Inspector Sciberras said the husband had told her that his wife had provoked him by throwing a bunch of keys at him and he lost control.
The wife gave a copy of CCTV footage of the incident to the inspector who exhibited it in court.
The magistrate heard how the woman was called to testify on two occasions but decided not to, even though she was now legally separated from her husband.
The prosecution then declared it had no more evidence to produce in light of the woman’s decision.
For this reason the court abstained from pursuing the case given the fact that the woman withdrew the formal report against by choosing not to testify.
The case dated back to August 2006, that is, after the Domestic Violence Act came into force earlier that year. This allows third parties to report abuse to the police who can initiate court proceedings without the victim having to file a report. Before the law was enacted, the victim had to file a police report for the case to go to court.
Names are not being published to protect the victim due to the sensitive nature of the incident.