Woman handed suspended sentence for filing false police report against ex-husband

A woman who falsely accused her ex-husband of failing to pay alimony has been convicted of simulating an offence and filing a false report against him.

The police had charged 36-year-old Glorianne Grace Zammit Saliba Toledo with knowingly and with intent to inflict damage, accusing an innocent person of a crime and fabricating false evidence to support her claim.

Zammit Saliba Toledo had been charged following a criminal complaint which had been filed on behalf of her ex-husband Reuben Zammit, who alleged that she had falsely reported him to the police in November 2021, accusing him of having failed to pay child support to her for the previous two months. 

The criminal complaint requested that the police charge the woman with making calumnious accusations and simulation of an offence.

In a judgement handed down earlier this month by the Court of Magistrates, presided over by Magistrate Monica Vella, the court noted the testimony of a police sergeant, who explained that the ex-husband had been called in for questioning after the woman went to the Rabat police station to file her report.

In an affidavit, the sergeant added that the man had also provided the police with documents to show that he had paid the woman €300 in child support on 24 November that year, adding that the man had pointed out to the police that the family court decree which ordered him to pay alimony did not specify the date on which it had to be paid. He explained to the police that the court had also issued a second decree, in terms of which alimony payments were to be deducted at source, from his paycheque.

The court was told that although the woman had agreed to go to the police station, when contacted by the police sergeant following the ex-husband’s criminal complaint, she never did.

Another officer testified that on 18 November, 2021, when the defendant’s ex-husband had first been questioned at the police station about the claimed non-payment of alimony for the months of November and October, the man had provided evidence to show that he had paid the sum for October a month in advance. “She is lying in these reports,” he recalled the man as saying.

The defendant’s ex-husband, Reuben Zammit, had also taken the witness stand in the proceedings. He explained that the decree ordering alimony payments to be automatically deducted from his pay had been issued on 28 July 2021, adding that, because he had been under the impression that it was up to the other party to officially notify his employer with the court order, he had simply left it at that. He told the court that had been in the process of changing his legal counsel at the time and had not sought advice about this issue.

When the police sent for him in October 2021 to inform him that the alimony payments to his ex-wife had not been made, the man had explained that she had never told him about this and had settled the amounts for July, August, September through internet banking there and then. In the presence of the police, he had also paid her alimony for the month of October, in advance.

The police witness also told the court that there had been a mistake that resulted in the man’s employers only being notified about the new arrangement on 21 October.

Zammit was called to the police station twice the following month. 

On the first occasion, he was informed that he had failed to pay alimony for November, and had replied that no date was stipulated in the decree, also pointing out that the money was being automatically deducted from his salary at the end of every month. 

The second time that he was called to the police station in November, was about a report filed by the defendant, in which she accused him of having failed to pay alimony for October. The man reminded the police that he had already paid the amount due in advance.

Zammit Saliba Toledo testified in her own defence in May 2023, telling the court that in terms of the relevant court judgement, alimony was to be paid on the first day of the month. She denied having reported him to the police for the October non-payment, but confirmed having filed a police report the following month.

Shown bank statements, documenting the payments on the stand, she confirmed that she had received them.

In her judgement deciding the case, Magistrate Monica Vella made reference to relevant case law on the topic of calumnious accusations, while also observing that the alimony decree in question did not specify the date on which it was to be paid. 

The magistrate explained that, as that decree had been handed down on the 28 July, it followed therefore, that the 15 day period during which the payment was to be automatically deducted from Zammit’s account was also to start then.

In addition to this, the court noted that the letter containing Zammit Saliba Toledo’s bank details which had been sent to Zammit’s employer, had been stamped by the post office with the date that it had been sent - 21 October, 2024. “Therefore there is no doubt that the complainant could have ever instructed his bank to deduct the amounts from his account and send it to the defendant’s before that date,” said the magistrate.

The court observed that the evidence showed that the woman had reported Zammit to the police “well in advance of [the date] on which the defendant was obliged to pay alimony for the month of November,” and that Zammit had paid his dues for October in advance, before he had received the letter specifying the bank account.

“The court finds that the fault for the defendant’s failure to immediately inform the complainant as soon as the July decree was handed down was hers and hers, alone.

“The defendant cannot expect the complainant to be punished for her failures,” ruled the magistrate. “Neither can she expect to file police reports against others, in this case the complainant, haphazardly, without first checking properly and carry on as if nothing had happened.”

Noting that Zammit Saliba Toledo had been “counting the days” until the expiration of the legal time limit on the 18th of the month before filing her report, the court said it had “no doubt that the defendant knew what she was doing, and neither does the court doubt that she knew that she had only sent her bank details to the defendant’s workplace in October.”

In her assessment of the entirety of the evidence, magistrate Vella concluded that the woman “was well aware of what she was doing, and that the report she was filing was not truthful,” handing Zammit Saliba Toledo a three-month prison sentence, which was suspended for one year.

Lawyer Lennox Vella was defence counsel. Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Jacob Magri assisted Zammit.