A barman was cleared of having seriously injured a customer in a glass-throwing brawl inside a St Julian's club after the court found that the charges hinged upon a botched investigation and a flawed identification process.

Stephen Azzopardi, 36, from Pembroke, was charged with having on the evening of February 10, 2014, unintentionally placed the life of Clinton Attard in clear danger when he was hit by a glass while waiting to be served at the bar.

The court, presided over by magistrate Doreen Clarke, heard the alleged victim explain how on the night in question he had been buying a drink at the bar when he was suddenly hit by a glass flung in his direction.

Splattered in blood, he was helped outside where he was medically assisted by an ambulance team. It was about an hour later that the victim, accompanied by a friend who had witnessed the incident, that a report was filed at the St Julian's police station.

Both men said they had suddenly caught sight of some hard object flung from behind the bar. However, they could not tell who was behind the incident. It was only after being shown a photo of the accused by the police that they "identified" him as the culprit.

The accused had testified in the proceedings, shedding a different light upon the whole episode.

That night, working as head barman at the club's VIP area, he had been serving customers when he sensed some commotion nearby.

Leaving his post to call in the security, he had caught sight of two male customers allegedly hurling glassware at the bar. These were soon led out by security. Colleagues later told him that the ruckus had allegedly been sparked off by a customer who refused to pay for two Vodka bottles.

The barman explained how he had later been approached by policemen who went to the club and escorted him to the local police station where he was eventually placed under arrest.

The court observed that the alleged victim and his friend, when filing the police report, had simply indicated the barman without giving any description of the man. It was only upon being shown a photo of the suspect that they had "identified" the culprit. Such a suggestion went against all rules of procedure, declared the court.

"In dock identification" was also dubious since even a well-intentioned witness might automatically assume that the person in the dock was the accused, the court observed.

The bare and inconclusive evidence put forward by the prosecution, the fact that none of the police officers called to the scene of the incident were called to testify as well as the categorical denial by the accused, led the court to conclude that the case had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

For this reason, the court declared the accused not guilty and acquitted him of all charges.

Lawyer Joseph Giglio was defence counsel.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.