A review into how a prisoner on remand for domestic abuse was able to make 500 calls to the victim has found there was a ‘breakdown in the process’.

Last month, Deemster Graeme Cook halted the sentencing of Cesar Maia after learning the defendant had called the victim 500 times from Jurby Prison before he admitted the offence.

Maia, 42, of Ramsey, initially denied the charge but changed his plea to guilty in December, after the calls had been made.

Deemster Cook was concerned about the calls and whether they could constitute a separate offence.

The call transcripts have since been handed to the court. No evidence was found of any direct threats made by Maia to the victim to drop the case.

A short time after the calls, the victim made a retraction, but the prosecution decided to proceed with the case anyway.

During Maia’s sentencing on Thursday, prosecutor Roger Kane suggested some of the calls had elements of ‘coercion or manipulation’.

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) confirmed to Isle of Man Today that a review into how Maia was allowed to make the calls has taken place.

A DHA spokesperson said: ‘The use of prisoner phones is closely monitored. Under normal circumstances, a prisoner would not be able to contact their victim, particularly in a domestic abuse case.

‘We have reviewed the circumstances of the case, which were complex, but have identified a breakdown in the process which allowed this to happen.

‘The process has been revised and improved safeguards are now in place. We urge any victims of domestic abuse to contact the police or Victim Support.’

During Thursday’s hearing, Deemster Graeme Cook confirmed no further charges had been brought as a result of the calls made.

But he said: ‘These calls should not have been made but this is an internal issue for the prison.

‘I do not see the calls as a particular aggravating feature either, as there is no evidence he threatened her to drop the charges. But 500 phone calls from prison should not have happened.’

The court heard Maia had been in an on-and-off relationship with the victim for some time.

On the evening of February 8, 2025, Maia had been staying at the victim’s house and put his alarm on snooze. When she asked him to turn it off he slapped her in the head. He left that morning but did not say if he would be spending the next night there.

Not expecting Maia to return that day, the victim locked up and went out. When she returned later that evening he came back shortly after midnight.

Maia accused the complainant of locking him out and began verbally abusing her, accusing her of sleeping with others and calling her ‘the devil’.

He hit the victim, then pushed her against a window and repeatedly punched her in the head. He also tore chunks of her hair out and said he would gouge her eyes out. He also threatened to kill her if she went to the police.

Eventually the victim left the house and went to her sister’s home and police were called.

She was examined in hospital where she was found to have suffered cuts and swelling to the face and bruising to the arms.

Maia was later arrested and denied assaulting the victim, claiming she had grabbed his arm and he had merely pushed her away. He also claimed she tore her own hair out.

In mitigation, advocate Paul Glover told the court his client had already spent 14 months in custody on remand.

Mr Glover said: ‘While in custody my client has had time to reflect on his lifestyle and his actions.

‘Alcohol has been a key factor in his offending but now he has been forced to become clean while in custody.

‘Giving him a suspended sentence with supervision would allow probation to work with him.’

The prosecution also felt a Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) should be made even though this had not been requested by the victim.

Mr Kane said: ‘We feel the victim needs protection and she is in danger of further domestic abuse. In many cases the abused will take the abuser back.

‘Sometimes the most vulnerable people are those who want to continue the relationship. I feel the phone calls from prison were an attempt at manipulation.’

Deemster Cook handed Maia a 23-month prison sentence but decided there were grounds to suspend it for two years with two years’ supervision.

He also granted the DAPO for an indefinite period, meaning Maia cannot contact the victim directly or indirectly.