Mother whose death threats were overheard by police, loses appeal

Mother whose death threats were overheard by police, loses appeal

An enraged mother who was overheard by police as she threatened, over the phone, to kill her estranged husband has lost an appeal against her conviction.

Rita Zammit was charged with insulting and threatening her estranged husband, with causing him to fear that violence would be used against him and with misuse of electronic communications equipment.

Mrs. Zammit had been found guilty of the charges in May 2016 and fined €50, as well as being ordered not to molest the man for a year or face a penalty of €400.

She filed an appeal, asking for a reform of the sentence she had been given on the grounds that she had been reacting to provocation.

Judge Giovanni Grixti, presiding the court of Appeal observed that the Zammits had been facing matrimonial problems and had separated. On the day of the incident, the appellant had been waiting for her daughter to return from school when her estranged husband had told her not to wait for him or her daughter and that she would never see either of them again.

It emerged that the man had collected the daughter from school and drove straight to the police station to report the fact that the child was in danger. The husband had acted on his lawyers advice after several reports to Appogg about the situation of his daughter in the conjugal home and had informed his wife that he was at the police station.

But while the man was making the report, Mrs. Zammit had called him up and threatened to kill him or get someone to kill him. This was heard by the police sergeant taking the man’s report, as the mobile phone was in hands free mode.

Mrs .Zammit contended that her words were uttered in a state of panic and provocation.

Neither the first nor the second court agreed with her, however.

“It is true that those words were stirred by emotions that she was going through at the time with the actions of her husband, however this does not fit into the provocation hypothesised in the article in question,” said the court of appeal.

The appellant had other, far more suitable, paths to choose in the circumstances, said the court, “certainly not threatening her husband with homicide.”

Despite the woman’s argument that her behaviour was reasonable and intended to protect herself or her property, the court said it saw no reasonableness in the light of the threats made and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the first court.

Inspector Neville Mercieca prosecuted.