A woman who reported her ex for breaching a protection order had tried to provoke the man so that she could file a "vindictive" report, police told a court on Wednesday.

The 26-year-old was charged with breaching a protection order against the mother of his three children as well as breaching three separate sets of bail conditions.

However, from testimony, it emerged that police believed the woman was trying to bait him into replying to her and was intentionally trying to “harm” the accused through a “vindictive” report. 

Police inspector Audrey Micallef told the court the woman had filed a report with the domestic violence unit alleging that the accused - who was under court order not to contact her unless it was about their children - had sent her several Whatsapp messages and had tried to send her messages through some of her friends. 

She also alleged he had called her at 11.30pm on one occasion and that she had heard the sound of a car but could not confirm it was the accused.

While investigating, Micallef said the messages provided to the police by the woman did not show any form of communication that did not concern their minor children aged five, three and one.

When asked to indicate the third parties through whom the accused had allegedly passed messages, the woman also refused to do so, saying she did not wish to involve them in court proceedings.

Instead, when examining the chat logs provided by the woman, there were clear instances where she instigated off-topic conversations, including asking the accused for cab money when he could not pick up the children himself due to work commitments. 

Micallef said the accused had cooperated fully with the investigation and had granted her access to his phone to show her the messages he received from the woman. 

Chat logs showed she had sent him a litany of messages that went unanswered and when she remained unsatisfied by his lack of a reaction she told him she would “do what she had to do”. 

He also showed the inspector a series of voice notes in which she continued to pester him over the course of five hours. 

Micallef also mentioned that, mere hours after filing the report with the domestic violence unit, the woman started to call her repeatedly as well to ask whether police had arrested him yet. 

Risk assessment ‘playing tombola’ 

Micallef also said that last November the victim had undergone a risk assessment and scored 12 points, however, less than two months later when she filed a police report about the accused over identical circumstances, assessors had scored her 17 points. 

When the inspector asked for an explanation for this discrepancy, the assessors decided to reduce the second assessment to 15 points. 

Micallef criticised the seemingly arbitrary way assessors had scored and said it was not the first time assessors had told the police they would “put whatever you tell us to” on the score.

“We are not drawing tombola numbers here,” she said. 

“My bible is the criminal code and I act only on the facts and what offences could have happened in respect of the alleged victim.”

Defence lawyer Jose Herrera thanked the inspector for being loyal to the facts of the case and told the court the man would be willing to admit to the charges if the court took into consideration the circumstances surrounding the case. 

He said that if there was an infringement, it was only on a technical level, as it was clear the woman was the one calling and texting the accused and trying to provoke him into a reaction when he would not give in to her.

“It is vindictive and the court should not allow itself to become a vehicle for revenge,” he said. 

Herrera said he had recently learned that there were some 3,000 pending domestic violence cases. This, he said, was not surprising given that once a report was filed, it could not be retired. 

The court, he continued, should distinguish between different levels of offences and that the accused having what amounts to a dispute with the woman over their children did not merit jail time.

The accused duly agreed to admit to the charges. 

'Children should never be used as weapon against father'

Making submissions on sentencing, Micallef urged the court to opt for a suspended sentence. 

“In my opinion, this report is clearly vindictive and she intends to cause him harm,” she said.

The inspector brought up other issues that surfaced during the investigation, including that the woman actively tried to subvert the man’s efforts to avoid her, such as forbidding him from picking up their children from her mother’s house and insisting he contact her directly. 

Micallef said it was also clear the woman withheld the children from the accused arbitrarily and would often go stretches where he only saw them on video calls.

“Children should never be used as a weapon against their father, there is no place for this behaviour,” she said. 

The alleged victim also sought to make trouble for the accused whenever she found out he had a new partner or close female friend, Micallef continued, with the accused showing her messages where she threatened to assault these women if she suspected they were keeping him company. 

“Usually in such cases, I typically include the charge of misusing electronic equipment,” Micallef told the court. 

“But in this case, I didn’t because there were no insults and no threats and I dare to say that if there were, they were coming from the other party.” 

After deliberating, Magistrate Marse Ann Farrugia found the man guilty by his own admission and sentenced him to a one-year jail term suspended for two years.

She also ordered the confiscation of €200 in deposits from each of his bail decrees for a total of €600. 

Police inspector Audrey Micallef prosecuted. 

Lawyers Jose Herrera and Martina Herrera appeared for the accused.