80 hours of community work for breaching protection order

A 37-year-old man was ordered to carry out 80 hours of community work and forfeit a total of €20,000 from his bail deposit and personal guarantee after pleading guilty to breaching a protection order and a set of bail conditions.

The man landed in the dock Monday afternoon after he allegedly came across his ex-wife in Mosta and passed twice near his former in-laws home in Mġarr within an hour on the same day.

A month ago, the man pleaded not guilty to separate domestic violence charges, with the duty magistrate then granting the man bail and issuing a protection order in favour of the victim.

Police inspector Audrey Micallef told the court that a police report was filed against the man on October 18. According to the alleged victim, the man had stopped by her side on the traffic lights on Independence Avenue in Mosta. The woman then drove off to her mother’s house in Mġarr.

Once she was parking in Mġarr, the man allegedly drove slowly along the same road and nodded in her direction, twice.

Asked by Micallef whether the man followed her all the way, the woman said he did not. Towards the end of the arraignment, it emerged that woman did not use the panic button and later filed a report.

Defence lawyer Mario Mifsud questioned why a person was being arraigned on alleged nodding, and asked the inspector what time was the panic button used, to which Micallef replied “At no point in time did I mention the panic button.”

“What did he breach exactly? Because he drove through a road and allegedly nodded, how does that amount to a breach? He did not speak to her neither gestured at her," Mifsud shouted.

The lawyer stormed out of the courtroom only to return after he calmed down.

He then informed the court that his client would plead guilty and asked the court to approach the bench to discuss the case out of earshot.

Parte civile lawyer Lara Dimitrijevic declined saying there was nothing to discuss, to which the lawyer replied: “you’re so nasty. Exaggerated nastiness from the parte civile” before turning round to the journalists present in court, and saying “write it down”.

Mifsud informed the court that he would no longer represent the man in the case, and that lawyer Nicholas Mifsud would do so instead of him.

The court dictated a note in which it said: “the court, at this stage, after having already warned lawyer Mario Mifsud not to make any extra comments, he once again spoke about ‘the parte civile’s’ nastiness and instigated the media after the court expressly prohibited him from addressing the media present in the courtroom. It was for this reason, that the court ordered his removal.

The court is ordering that this minute is sent to the Chamber of Advocates.”

Lawyer Nicholas Mifsud then rushed in as he had been previously caught up in a different case before a different magistrate.

Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi told him “I wish you had been present for what just happened” before reading out the note.

When Mifsud asked to approach the bench, the magistrate refused saying that any submissions on punishment should be made in open court. Lawyer Nicholas Mifsud said he had been informed by lawyer Mario Mifsud that the woman’s lawyer is refusing to discuss, to which Dimitrejvic replied “why should I approach if he is admitting guilt?”

Mifsud submitted that the issue is that his client drove along a main road in Mġarr where relatives of his ex-wife live triggering the current proceedings.

He added that there is an issue pending before the Family Court and his client was not seeing their two minor children. He distinguished between different breaches of a court-imposed protection order, and cited a decree recently handed down by Magistrate Nadine Sant Lia in which the court questioned why the man was arraigned under arrest when he could have been easily under summons.

During that sitting it emerged that the an internal Police SOP directs officers to arraign under arrest when a breach of a protection order is being alleged.

Following the admission, Mifsud said the punishment meted out in this case should reflect the circumstances of the case and the intention of the legislator when enacting the law.

Dimitrijevic countered that the first time her client saw him was close to her home in Mosta and some time later in Mġarr. She insisted that the woman still does not know what he was doing there as he did not justify his presence, and was scared. She added that rather than using their children as an excuse, there was an application still pending before the Family Court which has yet to be decided. The lawyer added that effective imprisonment was not suitable in this case.

Micallef observed that the man was not charged with causing the woman fear because when asked by they investigators she never mentioned fear but said it distressed her.

The police inspector observed that the woman has a panic button but did not press it since according to her it was a “matter of seconds”. She added that the man did not insult her and she could have pressed the button, as she deferred to the court for a suitable punishment.

Mifsud concluded by saying that he was not trying to draw sympathy to his client’s situation by mentioning the children, and said that during the interrogation, the man had exercised his right to silence.

The court found the man guilty by his own admission and ordered him to carry out 80 hours of community service in connection with the breach of the protection order.

It also ordered the forfeiture of the €10,000 deposit and €10,000 from his €30,000 personal guarantee in favour of the government.

Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi presided.

Police inspector Audrey Micallef prosecuted. Lawyer Nicholas Mifsud appeared for the accused and lawyer Lara Dimitrijevic appeared for the victim.