Man caught attacking partner with a piece of broken mirror after police force entry into house

Police officers who forced open the door to a private residence found a naked man attacking his partner with a shard of broken glass from a smashed mirror • Footage of incident captured on police body cam • Man denied bail

Man charged with attacking his partner is denied bail as court fears he could tamper with evidence (File photo)
Man charged with attacking his partner is denied bail as court fears he could tamper with evidence (File photo)

A 40-year-old man from Floriana was remanded in custody this morning, after he was charged with attacking and intentionally injuring his partner with a piece of broken glass during a domestic argument.

The father of two, whose name cannot be published due to a court order, appeared before Magistrate Ian Farrugia this morning, accused of attacking the woman, inflicting grievous injury on her, as well as subjecting her to unwanted and degrading sexual advances.

Prosecuting police inspector, Eman Hayman explained how the police had received a report of shouting and sounds of fighting emanating from the accused’s residence on Saturday afternoon. Officers were dispatched to investigate the report and had found a woman, later identified as the alleged victim’s mother, outside the property, banging on the door and screaming to be let in.

The officers had to force the door open to gain access to the residence, where they had discovered the accused, unclothed and in the act of attacking the victim with a piece of glass, he said. The woman’s injuries had been inflicted with a shard of glass from a broken mirror, explained the inspector.

Inspector Hayman asked the court to treat the accused as a recidivist and to issue a protection order in favour of the alleged victim.

Lawyer Matthew Xuereb, appearing as defence counsel to the accused, asked the inspector whether the victim had ever filed a police report about the accused. She had not, replied the inspector, adding however, that footage from the arresting officers’ body cam was self-explanatory.

The lawyer asked as to why his client had been charged with grievous bodily harm when the injuries had been certified as slight by a doctor. The inspector replied that he had disagreed with the doctor’s assessment and so had charged the man with causing grievous injuries.

The alleged victim had been spoken to by the police and had also given a detailed account of the incident to the examining doctor, said the inspector. “The video I saw showed that the woman had been shouting for help from behind the door. When the door was forced open, the woman had hugged the police officers,” he added.

Xuereb also asked whether the victim had attended a follow-up appointment with the court medical examiner. The Inspector had not heard back from the court-expert at this point, he said.

Asked by the defence as to whether the man appeared to be under the influence of any substances at the time of his arrest, the inspector replied with a description of what had been recorded. “I saw the video and the accused was not making sense, empty words, the speech of a person who didn’t want to speak. He was found naked,” the inspector explained, before the defence interrupted him.

Xuereb requested bail, with the request meeting objection from the inspector in view of the grave nature of the charges, his character and the “total control” which the accused allegedy exerted over the alleged victim.

Xuereb said that the case was "indeed delicate", but added that the accused’s partner had not wanted the police to prosecute his client, who was going through “a rough patch” and had two children and a business to run.

The lawyer claimed that the case had been “completely invented by the prosecution, from A to Z” accusing the inspector of dismissing expert advice and extrapolating the charges, asking for his client’s release on bail, even if against stringent bail conditions.

The court, however, denied the request in view of the charges and the man’s criminal record, saying this caused a real fear that the accused would attempt to tamper or interfere with evidence, were he to be released at this stage.

The magistrate also ordered a ban on the publication of the names of the parties.