Man who pointed loaded gun at former partner in dispute gets seven-year prison term

The Court of Magistrates has sentenced a 35-year-old man to seven years imprisonment after finding him guilty on Wednesday of a violent assault on his ex-partner

He faced multiple charges relating to an incident that took place on 19 December 2021.

The main charges were assaulting his ex-partner and in turn causing her voluntarily grievous bodily harm to his partner, insulting and threatening her and for possessing firearms without a valid licence. The prosecution also requested he be treated as a recidivist on the basis of previous final convictions.

Inspector Sherona Buhagiar produced several firearms and ammunition seized from the accused's possession, including shotgun cartridges, three rifles of different brands, a pistol and bullets in a black case and another two shotguns. Receipts relating to the purchase of weapons and ammunition were also exhibited.

A police officer from the firearms licensing unit testified that while he did hold firearms licences, these had expired on 31 December 2020.

Gun loaded and pointed

The victim of the incident gave a detailed account of the events. She explained on the day in question, she returned home with the accused, his son, and his niece after they had gone to the Sunday market and then to her mother’s place.

At her mother’s house, he began drinking. Once they returned home, seeing he was in no state to drive, she took the children to his mother’s house. This angered him.

When she returned, she told him to get out, the man told her: “You’ll pay for this”, lifted his shirt, pulled out a firearm from under his clothing, loaded it and pointed it at her. The victim recounted how shocked she was and remembered hitting him back with an ice pack she was holding.

She then recalled being headbutted by him and fell to the floor.

A medical doctor confirmed the victim had suffered a laceration of the nasal bone, an injury of grievous nature.

She also testified the accused frequently told her that if she ever left him, he would not leave her in peace.

Her daughter also corroborated the version of events, recalling hearing shouting and threats from the kitchen, including phrases such as: “You will pay for everything” and “This won’t end here”.

She recalled hearing a big thud and seeing her mother on the floor covered in blood. The daughter also remembered seeing the man near the sink holding something small in his hand.

CCTV footage from the victim’s building showed him with the front pocket of his hoodie clearly bulging with an object.

The accused opted to remain silent in his audio-visual statement to the police, refusing to answer questions or even to address whether he had consulted his lawyer or been informed of his rights.

When he eventually testified in court, his version was radically different from that of the victim.

He alleged the victim had struck him with a vase and said that this blow broke his “eye cap” and he merely pushed her away in self-defence. 

At this juncture, the court remarked that he had never once reported this supposed assault by the woman to the police. He denied having a pistol on him and denied every allegation that he had used a firearm or head-butted her. He also insisted all firearms he owned were stored legally and duly licensed, despite clear evidence his licence had expired nearly a year earlier.

He also insisted his facial scar came from the alleged blow but expert evidence and photos showed it originated from an eye piercing he falsely claimed not to have had at the time. He denied having a piercing when arrested, despite both the expert and his own mother confirming the opposite.

The court expressed no doubt the victim’s and her daughter’s testimony were credible, consistent and reliable. By contrast, it described the man’s testimony as “truly tangled”, riddled with contradictions and inventions, finding it to be wholly fabricated from beginning to end.

The court determined all charges had been satisfactorily proven.

In determining sentence, the court took into account the seriousness of the offences, considered the accused's updated criminal record, noting that instead of reforming, another two convictions had been added. 

The court said the purpose of punishment is to protect society and reform the offender where possible. However, in cases of violence on the person, particularly involving weapons, the courts have consistently held that immediate imprisonment required.

The court wished the sentence imposed to send a clear message of deterrence, both to the offender and to society at large, emphasising domestic violence coupled with firearms, cannot be tolerated in society.

For these reasons the accused was found guilty of all charges and was jailed seven years and was also ordered to pay €572 in expert costs.

A three-year restraining order was brought into force in favour of the victims. The court also ordered the destruction of all firearms.

Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech presided over the case.

Parte civile lawyer was Matthew Xuereb.