Court may decide a case even if there is conflicting evidence

On 25 March 2025, the Court of Criminal Appeal, led by Mr Justice Neville Camilleri, delivered a judgment in the case The Police vs IS. The case arises from a conflict between IS and his wife, SS, occurring on 27 June 2022. This judgment highlights crucial aspects of domestic disputes, the evidentiary burden in criminal law, and the nature of judicial discretion in assessing credibility.

The appellant, IS, faced three charges stemming from an incident involving alleged physical harm and coercive behaviour towards his wife. The charges included: Causing harm to SS without intent to kill or endanger her life; uttering insults and threats against her; and illegally changing locks in a property claimed by his wife.

After an initial court hearing, the Court of Magistrates declared the second charge time-barred and acquitted IS of the third charge. However, he was found guilty of the first charge, which resulted in a requirement to enter a deposit of €1,000 to ensure the safety of his wife and maintain public peace for 12 months.

The crux of the appeal dealt with IS's claim of innocence concerning the first charge. The defence argued against the prosecution's burden of proving guilt, highlighting conflicting narratives between the couple regarding the incident. The appellant contended that the medical evidence did not support physical abuse, asserting that the lack of visible injuries reflected favourably on his case.

In response, the Attorney General rebutted IS’s claims, maintaining that the initial court effectively gave weight to witness credibility and evidence. The judgment underscores the principle that it is the court’s role to determine which testimony to believe based on the evidence presented. Notably, the First Court had access to the testimonies of both parties and based its determination on the credibility of those accounts.

From the evidence produced, the couple live apart from each other. On the day of the incident the wife went to the property where the husband lived. The wife claimed the property as her own and visited to see whether the property was in a good state. When she arrived, she tried to open the door but could not. Her husband came out and asked her to leave. When she refused, she was manhandled by him. The husband disagreed with this version of events and said that he did not change the locks and neither did he push his wife.

A critical aspect of this judgment involved the evaluation of conflicting testimonies. Justice Camilleri referenced previous cases, reinforcing that not all discrepancies in witness statements automatically favour the accused. Instead, the court must analyse the context, content, and consistency of evidence provided.

This principle illustrates the complexity involved in domestic violence cases, where emotional narratives often complicate factual accounts. In IS’s case, both parties testified about the argument, with IS acknowledging that he had grasped his wife by her arm but described it as minor.

The judgment reflects a judicial commitment to safeguarding against unjust convictions, while also navigating the delicate realities of personal violence and personal disputes.

The court ultimately affirmed the First Court's decision, stating that the evidence supported its conclusions and that the appellant did not manage to overturn the burden of proof established against him.

The Court then turned down the appeal and confirmed the judgment delivered by the Magistrates’ Court.