A heated argument between a couple that somehow got out of hand led the woman to report her partner in the heat of the moment, only to retract her complaint later in court where she admitted she had probably taken a hasty decision.

Kurt Buttigieg, 36, had to face criminal proceedings over the violent episode which allegedly took place at the woman’s home in Żabbar.

On June 21, 2014, the couple had a full-blown row allegedly sparked off by the woman’s decision to break off her relationship with the accused. As the argument escalated, the man allegedly turned violent, causing his partner to fear for her own safety and even damaging her intercom.

In the heat of the moment, the woman had rushed to the local police station and reported the incident, which resulted in criminal action being instituted against the man.

The latter was taken to court and accused of having threatened his girlfriend, verbally abused her, caused her to fear violence and voluntarily damaged her property. He was also accused of relapsing.

When testifying in court, the victim admitted to acting too hastily when she rushed to the police with her complaint. Later, upon calm reflection, she decided to withdraw her complaint and renounce all interest in the case.

The court, presided over by Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, after hearing the woman testifying twice, concluded that the whole incident had been blown out of proportion while emotions were running high, further noting that the accused’s mood tended to swing from being calm to a state of nervousness.

The victim herself had openly admitted that “she probably had been hasty in her decision” so much so that the day after the argument, she called the accused, asking to make up.

On his part, the accused admitted to having likely damaged the woman’s intercom when he was ringing her doorbell in a temper. He had in fact fixed the system and paid some €700 out of his own pocket to have a new intercom installed.

In the light of such circumstances, the court declared itself “morally convinced” that what had occurred between the victim and the accused was a “heated family argument” which was possibly a common occurrence between two who shared an intimate relationship.

Such family incidents ought not to automatically result in the pressing of charges against the alleged aggressor, observed the court.

Nor had it been proved beyond reasonable doubt that that the damage to the victim’s property had been caused intentionally.

The court therefore declared the accused not guilty and acquitted him of all charges.

Lawyer David Gatt was defence counsel.