Former SMU officer wins libel case over In-Nazzjon article

Former In-Nazzjon editor Nathaniel Attard has been ordered to pay €3,000 in libel damages to ex-Special Mobile Unit (SMU) constable Mario Farrugia over an article alleging that Farrugia had been “one of the harshest officers” in a unit that was involved in the “the worst cruelty towards Nationalist supporters.”

Farrugia had filed for libel, over an article in PN organ In-Nazzjon, titled “Il-Gvern isejjah lura Pulizija tal-SMU” which asserted that he had been particularly harsh in his treatment of Nationalists in his time with the infamous unit.

Attard had raised the defence of fair comment, saying that the article consisted dealt with verifiable facts which were in the public interest and protected by the right to freedom of expression.

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale had heard how Farrugia had been inducted into the Police in 1986, being assigned to the SMU a year later before resigning from the force after a few months.

He rejoined the police force in 2014 as a member of the Rapid Intervention Unit (RIU).

Farrugia had been frank in his admission to the court that during the period before the May 1987 General Elections, there had been a number of officers from the SMU who had abused their position and involved the unit in the deplorable actions of the times. But Farrugia told the court that he had only been a driver with the unit and had played no part in the shootings or other incidents as he had been inside his vehicle.

The court noted that the article, while making ample reference to the history of the SMU, illustrated by photographs of the unit in action, also made various assumptions about Farrugia – in particular that he had been one of the unit's most hardline officers. It was incumbent on the author and the defendant as the editor of the paper which published the story, to substantiate the allegations it had made, the magistrate said.

The defendant had summoned author Dione Borg, who had conducted detailed research into the history of the unit while authoring a book about the turbulent period of the 1980s. Borg had been unable to identify Farrugia as having been involved in the incidents.

In his judgement on the case, magistrate Depasquale was quick to point out that the majority of the statements contained in the offending article were factually correct. It was true that the SMU had a “stain on its reputation after years of unpleasant actions,” and that the plaintiff had been involved in the unit “at the times when the worst cruelty towards Nationalist supporters took place,” as stated in the article. It was also true that Farrugia had been assigned to the RIU upon his rejoining the police force.

“However, the author felt he should not stop there, but had to add personal assertions about the plaintiff – which assertions, however, he was not in a position to substantiate as this case ran its course.”

He had not brought a witness to substantiate his assertion as to the plaintiff's attitude towards Nationalist supporters.

“The court cannot but observe that while the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct...the right of an individual to protect his reputation when faced by false allegations is equally important and worthy of protection.”

The court of appeal had ruled, earlier this year, that the right to freedom of expression was not a licence to maliciously sully an individual' reputation.

The court declared that the article “Il-Gvern isejjah lura Pulizija tal-SMU” was defamatory and libellous and ordered the defendant, as editor of In-Nazzjon, to pay the plaintiff €3,000 in damages.

Lawyer Edward Gatt appeared for Farrugia.