A man's jail term was suspended to give him a chance to prove himself a "worthy father" after he beat his former partner in a row over their children.
Dunstin Azzopardi, 35 from Żebbuġ, was accused of having grievously injured the woman when an argument between them escalated into violence outside the home shared by her and the man she subsequently married.
On the evening of October 30, 2015 the accused, with his parents in tow, had called for his children when a row broke out with his former partner. The two came to blows, with the woman ending up with permanent facial scarring. He also slightly injured the woman's husband who had stepped in to shield her from the blows.
The court, presided over by Magistrate Anthony Vella, observed that both parties had presented conflicting versions of the incident, with the married couple claiming it was Mr Azzopardi who started the attack, and the accused giving a somewhat colourful description of how his former partner had pounced upon him, tugging at his hair and scratching his face and chest while hitting out at his legs.
However, the court noted that while the accused's version was not corroborated by any evidence, the woman's account was supported by testimony from forensic expert Mario Scerri as well as circumstantial evidence.
For this reason, the court declared Mr Azzopardi guilty of having grievously injured his former partner, while acquitting him of the other charges.
When delivering judgment, the court remarked that the man needed to understand that, no matter what had taken place between his former partner and himself, both “were parents of two children.”
Stressing the need for the accused to set a good example as to how “a father was to treat the mother of his own children,” the court condemned the man to a jail term of one year suspended for three years.
The only reason for suspending the prison sentence was to offer the accused an opportunity to prove himself "a good father" to his children, an opportunity which the court augured that the man would “take seriously”.
The court further imposed a three-year protection 0rder in favour of the victim.