A man who has been in jail for a month pending criminal proceedings over domestic violence has had his request for bail turned down again. 

The 30-year old Gzira resident had been arraigned on March 8, pleading not guilty to grievously injuring his former partner, without intending to kill her, holding her against her will, damaging her mobile, stalking and harassment. 

He was further charged with misusing electronic communications equipment, threats, reckless and dangerous driving as well as committing the alleged wrongdoing during the operative period of a suspended sentence. 

The couple had split up but problems allegedly persisted between the two, with matters coming to a head when the man allegedly waited for his ex outside her home, forced her into his car and then assaulted her. 

The woman suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised. Her alleged aggressor landed behind bars after being arraigned and denied bail.

One month later, with the courts having been shut down amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, proceedings against the accused had not yet taken off, with no date scheduled for the first hearing. 

The man’s lawyer, Luciano Busuttil, thus requested the opening of the court registry for the purpose of filing an urgent bail application. 

But in a decree, magistrate Joseph Mifsud referred to the “special circumstances” under which the request had been filed, whilst taking note of the very serious nature of the charges involved, the need to safeguard public order and the risk of future crime. 

Citing European case-law, Magistrate Mifsud made reference to European case law which had declared that “continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty.”

The accused’s criminal record as well as the gravity of the charges, left the court with no option but to turn down the request for bail, noting that “violence within the family is always wrong and can never be justified, no matter what the circumstances”. The court also referred to a recent judgment wherein the Constitutional Court had stressed upon “the positive obligations of the State to ensure respect for private and family life.”