Woman cleared of false accusations against ex-husband

A woman who had been handed a suspended prison sentence for allegedly making false accusations against her ex-husband has been acquitted on appeal.

Glorianne Grace Zammit Saliba Toledo was originally convicted by the Court of Magistrates last October of calumnious accusations and simulating an offence after filing a police report claiming her former husband, Reuben Zammit, had failed to pay alimony.

She had been sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for one year.

The complaint was filed in November 2021 after Zammit failed to transfer the €300 monthly maintenance due. At the police station, he produced proof of a payment, insisting that maintenance was owed at the end of the month rather than the beginning. He later filed his own criminal complaint against his ex-wife, claiming she had falsely reported him.

The Magistrates’ Court accepted his version of events, ruling that Zammit Saliba Toledo had knowingly filed an untruthful report.

But the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, overturned that decision. It found that the lower court had misinterpreted the decrees regulating maintenance and that the woman’s complaint could not be considered either calumnious or simulated.

The issue revolved around whether alimony had to be paid at the start or the end of the month.

A family court decree from August 2019 ordered Zammit to pay €300 monthly from July 1 that year. Justice Grima said it was “clear and evident” that this meant payment was due on the first of the month.

For two years, no disputes arose, until Zammit Saliba Toledo requested that maintenance be deducted directly from her ex-husband’s salary. In July 2021, the Civil Court (Family Section) upheld that request, but the new system was not to take effect until December 2021.

Despite this, Zammit argued that because he received his salary at the end of the month, maintenance should also be paid then. Justice Grima dismissed this as his “own interpretation” of the decree, which was not supported by the court orders.

In October 2021, Zammit Saliba Toledo wrote to her ex-husband’s employer about the new arrangement but was told deductions could only start in December. That meant that in November 2021, Zammit was still responsible for paying the €300 directly.

When no payment was made within the first 15 days of the month, she filed a police report on legal advice. Zammit later transferred the money, but only after the statutory period had lapsed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal noted that Zammit’s own criminal complaint against his ex-wife referred to alleged non-payment in October 2021, when in fact the issue concerned November. The judge said this inconsistency should have been enough for the police to question the basis of the case.

The appeal court underlined that to convict someone of calumny, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knowingly filed a false report with malicious intent to cause harm.

In this case, Justice Grima said, such intent was not demonstrated. The woman acted on legal advice and had reason to believe her ex-husband was in breach of the family court decree.

As for the charge of simulating an offence, the court said this requires inventing an offence without accusing a specific person. That was not the situation here, since the complaint was directly against Zammit.

“The facts in issue of the case do not configure themselves in the elements of the offence of simulating an offence,” the court ruled.

Given these findings, the court held that the magistrate had erred in convicting the woman. Any doubts about the interpretation of the decrees, Justice Grima added, should weigh in her favour.

The appeal was upheld, and Zammit Saliba Toledo was acquitted of all charges.

Lawyers Joe Giglio and Lennox Vella appeared for the woman.