The judiciary together with the police and advocates have a major duty to ensure that the courts are not reduced to fora where piques are amplified, thereby benefiting those who seek litigation over ‘trivial matters rather than resolve problems through common sense and good will.’

In a strongly-worded judgment, Magistrate Joseph Mifsud cleared a woman of having given false testimony before a court-appointed expert in an ongoing custody battle with her former husband.

After the couple’s marriage was annulled by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, proceedings continued before the civil courts with respect to the care and custody of their two minor children.

It was during this case that the woman had allegedly given evidence before a court-appointed expert on two separate occasions in December 2013 and January 2014 wherein she had denied having ever told her then-husband that she would return to the matrimonial home so long as he annulled the deed of separation of assets signed before they had tied the knot.

Yet, subsequently, the man had produced a recording of a conversation with his former spouse, which had allegedly taken place at Dar Merhba Bik, where the woman had sought refuge, wherein the latter had set this condition, contrary to what she later testified before the court-expert.

However, on the basis of the evidence produced, Magistrate Mifsud concluded that the crime of false testimony had not been proved.

The woman had never intended to distort the truth or lie when giving evidence. Moreover, the court could not rely on a snippet of conversation taken out of context and recorded without the consent of the woman.

Furthermore, it was up to the Family Court, presiding over the 14-year long matrimonial battle to decide whose version it chose to believe, the magistrate observed, pointing out that the man had persisted in his attempts to have criminal charges pressed against his ex wife.

When the police had refused to take criminal action upon his report, the man had filed a challenge against the police commissioner which was turned down by a Magistrates’ Court. It was only when that decision was overturned on appeal that criminal action had kicked off against the woman who was ultimately declared not guilty.