Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner acquitted P.c. Anthony Dexter Thomas of both counts of assault at Magistrates? Court on Friday.

Thomas, 36, of Police Barracks, Prospect, was accused of assaulting his former girlfriend P.c. Cammie Michelle Berkeley and causing her bodily harm.

He faced the same charges regarding P.c. Berkeley?s friend Linda Gail Mienzer. Both alleged assaults took place on May 18.

P.c. Thomas showed up at P.c. Berkeley?s house that night and found another man in her bedroom.

After the other man left P.c. Thomas and P.c. Berkeley started fighting.

P.c. Thomas said that P.c. Berkeley began to ?rant and rave? and started to hit him. During the course of the argument P.c. Thomas made some personal calls, one of which was to Ms Mienzer who came to the residence and heard yelling coming from the bathroom.

She kicked down the door and told the court she found P.c. Berkeley, ?in a cowering position? by the bathtub with P.c. Thomas standing above her. Ms Mienzer jumped on Thomas and P.c. Berkeley ran out of the bathroom.

P.c. Thomas said he wrestled Ms Mienzer off him but did not kick her. P.c. Thomas then followed P.c. Berkeley into her bedroom and this is where he allegedly punched her repeatedly.

While this alleged assault happened, Ms Mienzer called the Police who came to the house but did not arrest P.c. Thomas.

Crown counsel Shade Subair did not go over the Crown?s case during her closing arguments and chose to concentrate on P.c. Thomas?s testimony.

She reminded the court that during the cross-examination P.c. Thomas said: ?No, I was not very angry when I discovered the male in Cammie?s bedroom.?

Ms Subair said: ?It is not believable that he, without invitation, attended the house in these circumstances and remained calm when it was the complainant who got enraged.?

Mr. Warner said it was not up to him to choose which side he believed more and that it he must make his decision based on the evidence and testimony that was provided.

The Crown?s case was forced to rely heavily on Ms. Mienzer?s testimony because P.c. Berkeley said she could not remember details regarding the events of May 18.

P.c. Berekley also said she did not remember if she was assaulted or if she saw P.c. Thomas kick Ms Mienzer.

P.c. Berkeley?s 13-year-old daughter also testified. although it was an un-sworn, which meant it was only useful if it was corroborated by another witness?s account of the events.

P.c. Berkeley?s daughter told the court she heard her mother say ?ow, my eye? and saw her on the bathroom floor with P.c. Thomas standing over her.

P.c. Thomas?s lawyer, Allan Doughty, pointed out that the young woman did not see P.c. Thomas strike her mother and that much of her version of the events was uncorroborated and had to be disregarded.

He also argued that Ms Mienzer could not be considered a credible witness because her version of the events varied from the time she made the complaint to her court appearance. In her testimony Ms Mienzer said Thomas pushed her against the sink at an earlier time than she had said in her statement to the Police two days after the incident.

Ms Meinzer also told the court that Police broke down the bedroom door. This differed from the testimony P.c. Berkeley?s daughter gave who said the door was open and the Police walked in.

Mr. Doughty said that none of the witnesses had been credible or useful for the Crown?s case and that the Crown?s case had ?died a slow and ugly death of massive witness failure?.

Mr. Warner acquitted P.c. Thomas because the Crown had not proven without a reasonable doubt that the assaults happened. Mr. Warner agreed with Mr. Doughty that Ms Meinzer could not be considered a credible witness and said that Ms Meinzer embellished a lot of the events and could not be believed.

Mr. Warner felt P.c. Berkeley?s daughter was the ?voice of truth? when it came to the events on May 18.

P.c. Berkeley?s daughter testified that she did not see P.c. Thomas hit and punch her mother or kick Ms Meinzer and push her into a sink.

He also said that P.c. Thomas was not shaken by any of Ms Subair?s questions during his cross-examination and that there was no reason not to accept his version of the events.