A bouncer who was found guilty of assaulting a young German tourist outside a Paceville club four years ago, was cleared on appeal after the court noted that the case was riddled with “far too many discrepancies and inconsistencies.”

Savo Bogicevic, a 30-year old Bosnian who worked as a private guard at the club in August 2018, had landed a two-year jail term suspended for four years and a €4,000 fine following the early morning incident.

His lawyers appealed the conviction by the Magistrates’ Court, arguing that the judgment was unsafe and unsatisfactory. They said the facts could not lead to a conviction, the credibility of the alleged victim and his friend was doubtful and that the punishment was excessive.

The case stemmed from an incident which started inside the club when the alleged victim grabbed a woman by the bottom.

When she turned round and pushed him, he slapped her, prompting the bouncer to intervene by grabbing the youth and showing him the door.

But after the youth and his Spanish friend left the club, a scuffle ensued, during which the victim was punched and beaten with a metal stick, ending up with black eyes and a cut above his left eyelid.

The alleged victim and his friend, gave a “diametrically opposed version” to that given by the bouncer and his colleagues about the events which unfolded after that first incident inside the club.

The victim first told police that the appellant was the bouncer who had told him to get out of the club but not the one who had punched him.

However, two days later, he turned up at the police station with a Facebook photo of Bogicevic, identifying him as the aggressor.

The version given by the victim to police immediately after the incident was also diametrically opposed to his testimony in court merely days later.

In his earlier version he said that the girl had slapped the victim, but in court “he completely removed the girl from the equation.”

Other discrepancies emerged as to who had actually inflicted the injuries.

The victim described the aggressor as “a bald-headed, well-built man wearing a black shirt, black pants and black shoes.”

However, the prosecution failed to prove whether there were other bouncers at the time who could fit that description.

There were also “gross discrepancies” between the version of the victim and that of his friend.

Both agreed that the aggression was unprovoked and that neither of them had retaliated to the alleged violence.

Both also confirmed that the appellant was not initially aggressive as he escorted them out of the club, describing his manner as “gentle” and “calm.”

That description appeared to confirm the appellant’s own version which remained consistent throughout.

“I did not punch him, nothing. I just went to my position once again…..I only took 10 seconds to take him out,” the bouncer first told police, confirming his version when testifying in court.

The young lady who had allegedly been harassed inside the club, also confirmed the accused’s version, shedding further doubt as to the credibility of the victim’s version.

After examining all evidence the Criminal Court of Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, observed that third parties were evidently involved in the scuffle outside the club.

But there was doubt as to the number of bouncers involved, whether the injuries resulted from the first fist punch or when hit with a metal rod, the identity of the aggressor who had assaulted the victim with that hard object and also whether the woman’s boyfriend had some role in the assault.

Identification of the alleged aggressor by the victim was “also unreliable,” said the court, thus partially upholding the appeal and revoking the conviction in so far as the assault was concerned.

The court also revoked the protection order in favour of the victim.

The court confirmed the appellant’s conviction for operating as a private guard without a licence but reduced the fine to €500.

Lawyers Michael and Lucio Sciriha assisted the appellant.