A man who violently clashed with his ex’s new partner near the airport has been cleared by a court on the basis of a “lingering” doubt” as to whether the victim’s injuries had been inflicted by the accused.

Muashi Hazem, a 33-year old Syrian father-of-one, was charged with grievously injuring the alleged victim during the fight in November 2017.

The alleged victim, a Tunisian national, had testified how he and his Maltese girlfriend had stopped to buy some takeaway from a fast food outlet and were sitting inside his car near the airport when a car drove up and parked nearby.

That car was driven by the accused who happened to be his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend and who had previously threatened the alleged victim on Facebook, warning him to steer clear of the woman.

The man had texted him, warning that “he was playing with fire,” but he had since deleted those texts in Arabic, the alleged victim explained.

That evening, thinking that Hazem wanted to have a word with him, the alleged victim had stepped out of his car, in spite of his girlfriend telling him not to for fear that a fight would break out.

An argument ensued and suddenly Hazem and two other men who were with him allegedly turned upon the Tunisian man who later insisted that the accused was the one facing him and the blow to his eye had come from that direction.

The woman also testified, explaining that the accused had insulted the couple, calling them “rubbish” and then her former boyfriend and the other two men had assaulted her partner, keeping up the assault even when he fell to the ground.

She denied triggering the fight by hurling abuse at her ex, adding that she stood by watching until two AFM soldiers, who happened nearby, intervened to break up the brawl.

One of the accused’s friends, however, testified that the woman had first insulted her ex and then “flew” at him when he answered her back, while her boyfriend hit out at Hazem.

That was when the accused’s two companions had intervened, the court was told.

An AFM soldier testified how that evening, while he and a colleague were doing the Safi rounds, they had chanced upon the fight between three Arab men and another man who was being held back by a woman.

The trio were raining blows on the alleged victim’s face and “all over,” using their fists, recalled the staff sergeant, adding that the fight appeared to be going in favour of the trio.

When the soldiers stepped in to break up the fight, stating that they were going to alert the police, all those involved in the punch up vanished.

The witness was unable to identify the accused in court, explaining that it was dark at the time of the incident that November night.

Medical professionals subsequently confirmed that the alleged victim had suffered a fractured eye socket, blood in the sinuses, scratches on his back and a painful shoulder.

The injury to the orbital wall needed surgery and was classified as grievous, although it did not appear to have resulted in permanent disabilities.

When delivering judgment, Magistrate Simone Grech, observed that there were conflicting versions of the incident.

The defence claimed that the fight had been sparked by the alleged victim and his girlfriend and the accused had only acted in self-defence.

But the court rejected that argument.

Upon the evidence put forward, it could not be determined as to who dealt the first blow, observed the court.

Moreover the version supplied by the alleged victim and his girlfriend was “not consistent and credible” but was sometimes contradictory.

In light of all evidence the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the injuries suffered by the alleged victim had “effectively” been caused by the accused.

The injured man had doubtlessly been involved in a fight but, even on the strength of eye witnesses’ testimonies, the accused was accompanied by two others and all three were punching the alleged victim.

Thus there was a “lingering question” as to who had actually inflicted the injuries and the prosecution had failed to produce evidence that could sufficiently convince the court to find the accused guilty.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi was defence counsel.