A husband who had appealed a minimal punishment of a reprimand and admonition over a violent episode with his wife was cleared of all guilt since the alleged victim recounted a different incident when testifying some two years later before the court of appeal.

The man had been found guilty of threatening his wife in a violent incident that occurred one day, shortly before midday, in September 2016 at the Parade Ground in Pembroke, with the Magistrates’ Court handing down a reprimand and admonition at the end of summary proceedings two months after the incident.

Yet, in spite of the minimal punishment, the accused had filed an appeal, requesting an acquittal on the basis of a wrong assessment of evidence by the first court.

This request necessitated a fresh examination of the evidence brought before the Magistrates’ Court so as to determine whether the first judgment was “legally and reasonably correct,” the Appeals Court observed.

That was when the accused’s wife was once again asked to take the witness stand, recounting how one July day back in 2013, her husband had vented his anger in the course of the couple’s umpteenth row, banging his fist against the wall and threatening to punch her to the extent of disfiguring her beyond recognition.

The following day the warring couple had met at the police station where they had both gone to file separate reports, the encounter sparking off another argument between the two.

Yet, this account given by the wife, varied from that referred to in the police report upon which the charges had been instituted, the latter based upon a complaint filed by the woman in September 2016.

The appellant chose not to testify at the appeal stage.

To make matters worse, there was no transcript of the evidence heard before the first court since summary proceedings were not recorded, a point which was seized upon by Mr Justice Grixti who observed that this situation had negative repercussions.

In the interim period until the case reached appeal stage, a witness could possibly forget facts, change versions or muddle up one incident with another, a situation which could easily be resolved if every deposition before the Magistrates’ Court were to be recorded, ordering the relative transcript should the case proceed to appeal.

Turning to the facts of the case at hand, the court concluded that since the alleged victim had testified about a totally different incident to the one underpinning the charges, the accused could not be found guilty of something he did not do, revoking the conviction.