Family of 'Is-Suldat' appeal against libel judgment

Heirs of drive-by shooting victim say no evidence was exhibited as to claims by PN media of ‘meticulous research’ in Il-Mument story they claim was libellous towards the late Paul Degabriele, known as ‘is-Suldat’

The late Paul Degabriele and his wife, Anna Marie. Photo: Facebook
The late Paul Degabriele and his wife, Anna Marie. Photo: Facebook

The wife and children of murder victim Paul Degabriele, known as is-Suldat, have filed an appeal against the judgment handed down in their libel suit against PN organ il-Mument. 

Degabriele had been murdered in one of a series of drive-by shootings in 2013. After this, il-Mument had run a five-page story on its Sunday 16 June 2013 edition, listing several similar murders that had taken place in the preceding months, including that of Joseph Grech “il-Yo-Yo” and Joseph Cutajar “il-Lion”, Kevin Gatt and Steve Zammit, Raymond Agius, Patricia Attard, Joseph Baldacchino, Joseph and Anna Briffa and PC Mark Farrugia. The offending article had described Paul Degabriele as a dangerous criminal who had been questioned by police during their investigations into these murders.

However in a judgment delivered earlier this month, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale had found no libellous content, praising the“meticulous research, which had considerably shaken public opinion,” behind the article.  The murders were cruel and macabre and remained unsolved, the magistrate had said, attributing this to “the culture of omertà that reigns in the criminal circles Degabriele used to frequent.”

Earlier today, lawyer Roberto Montalto filed an appeal application on behalf of the Degabriele family, which claims that the judgment contained passages of pure fantasy, as nothing it had mentioned had been proven before it. “No evidence had been exhibited with regards to the ‘meticulous research,’ and neither had the reason for which the murders remained unsolved, nor a factual basis for the assertion that Paul Degabriele had been known in criminal circles emerged.”

They argued that those considerations were only the mistaken opinion of the presiding magistrate and claimed that the deceased’s  actual criminal record contained only two convictions for theft – one of which they said was of a cassette, when he was only 15 - together with one conviction for attempted theft, and a number of minor contraventions and traffic offences.

The family requested the court of appeal to overturn the judgment by the court of magistrates, adding “If this is what makes a dangerous criminal and murderer, as the article and the previous court had described him, the appellants would like to know how one is to describe real criminals, such as those who took the life of Paul Degabriele.”