A MAN has been cleared of assaulting his estranged wife.

Simon Hookway was accused of barging former partner Lien into the front door of their home as he passed her, and then gripping her tightly by the arm and pushing her again into the door.

Mr Hookway had denied assault and was cleared of any wrongdoing following a trial at Colchester Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

The couple had been together for 15 years before their marriage broke down last autumn, the court heard.

Mr Hookway, 44, had moved out of their home in Burr Close, Ramsey, and was returning to the house with belongings when he was accused of the assault in October last year.

Mrs Hookway locked herself in the bathroom and called the police who arrived shortly afterwards and eventually arrested him.

The court was shown pictures of bruising Mrs Hookway had to her head and on her arm but Mr Hookway said he had no knowledge of how they had got there.

He said: “I absolutely did not push her. The door was open and I could walk in and out.

“At first I did not know what was happening and then the police turned up. I co-operated fully with them.

“I don’t know where she got the bruising from - her fringe was covering her head so I do not know if it was there before.

“I just wanted to bring back the items she had asked for.

“Those finger marks are not mine - I have not laid a finger on her in 15 years.

“When I was there she had a long sleeved cardigan on and I could not see if she had them then.

“But I did not grab hold of her arm at all - that did not happen.”

Mr Hookway, of Inglis Road, Colchester, said he and his wife were spoken to by officers in separate rooms after the police were called.

He said: “I was in the opposite room when an officer saw her injuries.

“He came and spoke to me afterwards and I said ‘What injuries?’

“I asked if I could see them for myself but he said it would be inappropriate.”

When Mr Hookway was asked by prosecutor Natalie Bird if he had had assaulted his wife he said: “That is absolutely wrong.”

The court heard Mrs Hookway had previously made other allegations about her husband but they were dismissed by police.

During her evidence, Mrs Hookway described her husband as a bad man and said he “should pay for what he has done.”

She insisted the bruises were inflicted by him.

Chairman of the bench Don Wicks said her evidence had been inconsistent.

While clearing Mr Hookway, he said: “We have heard from Mrs Hookway who we have found to be inconsistent in a number of aspects.

“Her first account differs from the one she gave to police and is also inconsistent to the version of events she gave today.

“Mr Hookway’s evidence was clear and concise.

“There does seem to be a swelling to Mrs Hookway’s forehead but we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you are responsible for that injury.”

Mr Howe said the bench had also taken into account the fact Mr Hookway was of good character, had no previous convictions and had three glowing character references.

Daniel Taylor, representing Mr Hookway, said: “There is a lot riding on this case for him.

“It would be easy for him to speculate about how the bruises got there but that is not what he has said.

“He has said he cannot and will not speculate, save to maintain he did not cause them.

“He has never been in trouble with police before and he is well regarded both personally and politically.

“He stands to lose everything in the light of this vexatious claim by a woman who would be more than happy for him to lose everything.”