A man who was given a suspended sentence for sending a threatening email to his avowed enemy and damaging the latter's car had his punishment revoked on appeal since there was no legal evidence linking him to the offences.

Gozitan Terance Zammit, 43, had been pointed out as the suspect behind the offences after a report was filed at the Victoria Police Station last summer.

One day in June last year, a car owner had told police he had parked his Lexus vehicle overnight in a street in the limits of Marsalforn, waking up the next morning to find its paintwork badly damaged. There were deep scratches in the shape of a cross on the door on the driver's side. The damage allegedly exceeded €250.

The accused, singled out as the main suspect, strongly denied the allegations when he was later approached by the police.

Criminal action was instituted against the suspect who was accused of filing a false report regarding the injured party, damaging his car and sending an email threatening to make it his ‘life mission’ to injure the recipient. He was also accused of harassing his victim.

The accused was found guilty by a Magistrates’ Court in Gozo on the second and third charge and condemned to a five-month jail term suspended for one year. He was personally bound under a guarantee of €2,000 for one year and ordered to pay his victim €325.

Upon appeal, Mr Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, observed that no valid proof had been produced linking the man to the damage on the car. The so-called “proof” rested solely upon hearsay evidence that was doubly so.

A young eyewitness had allegedly reported seeing the perpetrator, telling her mother about the matter. The latter in turn spoke about it to her own mother. Both mother and grandmother had testified. However, the direct witness was never called to testify over what she had personally seen.

Regarding the threatening email, the court noted that no email bearing the date mentioned in the summons was ever produced by the prosecution. Moreover, there was no proof that the email had been sent by the accused.

On the basis of such lack of proof, the court upheld the appeal, revoked the judgment and cleared the accused of all charges.

Lawyer Daniel Calleja represented the accused.