Court upholds seven-year jail term for man who pointed a pistol at woman and headbutted her

The Court of Appeal upheld a decision which found John Paul Grima guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to his ex-partner, assaulting and threatening her, and committing a crime against the person while in possession of a firearm.

The court had also convicted him of keeping or possessing a firearm or ammunition without a police licence.

The incident unfolded on 19 December 2021 at the woman’s home in Paola after an argument erupted when Grima, who had been drinking, became angry while attempting to fix a bathroom tap and broke it. According to the prosecution, he was asked to leave and did so after threatening her and taking the house keys, but returned shortly afterwards armed with a pistol, which he loaded and pointed at her.

The confrontation escalated when she struck him with an ice-pack, and he subsequently allegedly headbutted her, causing her to fall to the ground, with her daughter present in the flat at the time. 

The court also heard that what the accused claimed was an injury by the victim above his eyelid was in fact the result of an eyebrow piercing that had been removed after his arrest, a fact confirmed by medical evidence and CCTV footage.

The first court sentenced Grima to seven years’ imprisonment, ordered him to pay €572 in expert fees, cancelled any firearms licences he held, and issued a three-year restraining order in favour of the victim. It also ordered the destruction of any weapons exhibited in the proceedings.

The defence asked the court to overturn the convictions and set him free from the remaining charges. 

One of Grima’s main complaints was that the first court had wrongly discarded the evidence of a medical doctor, who had issued certificates about Grima’s injuries. The appeal court noted that two certificates were exhibited, one issued the day after the incident, classifying Grima’s injuries as slight, and another issued ten days later, classifying them as “possibly grievous”.

But the court said the case file showed the scar relied upon by the defence was caused when an eyebrow piercing was removed upon arrest, a point explained by a court expert in his report and testimony, and confirmed by a police witness who described how butterfly stitches were applied after the piercing was taken out. CCTV images were also seen showing Grima with the eyebrow piercing.

The defence also argued that the prosecution failed to call all witnesses. The appeal court repeated that the prosecution is not obliged to produce every witness so long as the evidence presented is “safe and satisfactory”. In any event, it noted the witness did testify, but as a defence witness, telling the court he was in the flat repairing a bathroom tap and, when he came out, he saw the complainant’s face covered in blood.

A second ground of appeal hinged on CCTV stills and Grima’s claim that he was not drunk and that no firearm could be seen. He also relied on the complainant’s admission that she threw an ice-pack, arguing his headbutt was a spontaneous, human reaction to being struck.

The appeal court reviewed the competing versions. The victim testified that after an earlier argument, Grima returned to the flat, drew a revolver, loaded it and pointed it at her. She said she struck him with the ice-pack, and then felt a headbutt which caused her to fall.

Grima, on the other hand, said the argument was about a hinge and escalated into mutual insults, claiming she threw a vase at him and injured his eye, and that he pushed her in self-defence.

The court rejected any suggestion that Grima’s actions could be justified as legitimate self-defence, stating there was no immediate threat and no proportionality in his use of force. It likewise found there was no basis for provocation on the evidence.

The court found that, in any case, the seven-year sentence fell squarely within the law and did not warrant interference.

The appeal court also echoed the Magistrates’ Court’s remarks that Grima’s conduct showed a lack of respect for the law, noting that his record did not reflect someone who “went into his shell” after the case but rather someone who was found guilty in two other cases during the four years the proceedings were ongoing, and that he had offered no apology for his actions.

Police inspector Sherona Buhagiar prosecuted. Defence Lawyer David Gatt appeared for the accused. Lawyer Matthew Xuereb appeared for the victim.