Former prison official Randolph Spiteri's libel case against Illum dismissed with costs
Former prison official loses libel case against Illum: Court rules that claims of degrading treatment by senior prison official of mentally-ill female inmate ‘substantially true’
A court has dismissed libel proceedings by a former prison official against Illum, ruling that the newspaper’s account describing his degrading treatment of a female inmate was “substantially true.”
Former prison assistant director Randolph Spiteri had sued journalist Yendrick Cioffi, Illum’s registered editor Saviour Balzan, as well as former Correctional Officer Emmanuel Cassar, who had made the allegation in an October 2021 interview published by the newspaper.
The plaintiff had taken umbrage at a sentence in the Maltese-language article, which said that Cassar had “also mentioned a case involving a prisoner who suffered from mental health problems [saying that] when she returned to prison, after a period of treatment at Mount Carmel Hospital, they ended up making fun of her, particularly the Assistant Director Randolph Spiteri.”
The plaintiff, who had occupied the position of Head of Administration and Operations at the Corradino Correctional Facility at the time the article was published, had testified.
From the witness stand, Spiteri denied mistreating inmates, telling the court that he was always a compassionate shoulder for prisoners, listening to what they had to say and helping them find a job when they were nearing their release date. There had never been any reports against him alleging mistreatment of prisoners, he said.
The court noted that Spiteri had insisted that the episode described in the article had never taken place, “so much so that he does not even know who the person mentioned in the article is.”
He explained that inmates would often travel to and from the mental hospital because of methadone stabilisation, which needs to be carried out by a psychiatrist and hospital’s medical team. Spiteri said that he felt that his reputation and integrity were tarnished as a result of the publication, because several people had asked him about the incident or scolded him for making fun of a vulnerable and mentally ill prisoner “although he knows he had never behaved in this way.”
Magistrate unconvinced by Spiteri's version
These denials did not convince Magistrate Rachel Montebello, however. “The court says, without hesitation, that it is not at all convinced at the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s account, when he said he did not know to which prisoner reference was being made in the article and that the episode described by defendant Emanuel Cassar had not taken place.”
The court said it was not difficult to understand that when the plaintiff said that “I definitely did not make fun of the vulnerable person that he is mentioning,” he had been referring precisely to the inmate mentioned in the article and not the defendant. “This also means that the plaintiff is well aware of who the vulnerable person being referred to by the defendant as having been mocked, is.”
From the manner in which Spiteri had testified, said the court, he showed that he had been aware, both of the incident as well as the identity of the inmate involved, but denies ever mocking her. “And once he knew who the inmate involved is, to the court, this means that an incident which remains in his memory really took place.”
Emmanuel Cassar had testified, telling the court how the inmate in question had been escorted by Spiteri and two other prison officers - one of them Cassar’s brother- from Mount Carmel Hospital to Mater Dei Hospital in order for doctors to remove a padlock and razor blades, wrapped in foil, which she had inserted in her genitals.
Cassar’s brother had told him that how while the inmate was on a stretcher in Mater Dei hospital, being treated by nurses, Spiteri had made fun of the female inmate, comparing her private parts to a “drydock.” The inmate had heard the offensive remark and insulted Spiteri in kind.
When they arrived back at the correctional facility, Spiteri had ordered that this inmate be locked up in a single room, with no clothes besides her panties. She had spent several days in this cell, and her stay in the small cell was extended whenever she had complained. Cassar said that he knew this to be a fact, because he had been present, together with his brother, an officer from the Special Response Team, when Spiteri had asked the female inmate “how are you feeling? Good in just your underpants?”
Cassar had reminded the court that the inmate had been placed in the single room on Spiteri’s orders, after she had retaliated to Spiteri’s provocation.
He told the court that he had also been present when, a few days after the incident, Spiteri had told his brother “all you have to say is that we had been talking about the drydock in Bormla and not the inmate.”
Court believes Cassar's account
The court said it believed Emmanuel Cassar’s version of events, over that of Spiteri “who, as we have seen, was not consistent and convincing in his testimony.” Although he had relied on his brother’s account of the incident at Mater Dei hospital, Cassar had been present, both when the plaintiff had ordered the half-naked inmate to be held in one-person cell, and when Spiteri had warned his brother to claim they had been discussing Bormla drydock if something happened.
“It is obvious to the court, in the same way it had been obvious to the defendant, that the ‘drydock’ reference confirms that it is effectively true that the plaintiff had insulted the inmate with this word, after she had been admitted to Mater Dei hospital because she had inserted razorblades and a padlock in her private parts.
“But in any case, the fact that the defendant had heard the plaintiff taunting the inmate at a time when she was naked, bar her panties, in a cell where she had been detained in this condition on the orders of the very same plaintiff, and that he had asked her whether she was feeling ok in just her panties, is sufficient evidence of the fact that, as reported in the article, the plaintiff had mocked her.”
The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the account had to be corroborated by testimony from the inmate in question or the defendant’s brother or other officials who had been present when the inmate was addressed in this manner while in hospital.
“Besides the fact that the court understands that Dennis Cassar is to date still employed with the Correctional Services Agency, it emerges that the defendant had convincingly explained, without hesitation, what had happened and was said in his presence, which is sufficient factual support to Cassar’s declaration and his specific accusation that Randolph Spiteri mocked and ridiculed an inmate who was being held at Mount Carmel Hospital, where patients suffering from mental illness are treated.”
The magistrate also noted that Spiteri had never seriously contested the defendant’s account and had limited himself to general denials of never having ridiculed vulnerable inmates. This, taken together with his unconvincing claim not to know which inmate was being referred to or of any particular episodes involving inmates returning to prison from Mount Carmel, led the court to rule that Cassar’s account was truthful and “proven on the basis of a balance of probabilities, on the preponderance of evidence.”
Cassar had successfully proven two instances of behaviour by Spiteri, the magistrate went on, “which gave rise to not only reasonable suspicion, but specific instances of disgusting conduct by the plaintiff in regard to an inmate suffering from mental health problems.”
The facts proven by Emanuel Cassar’s testimony were such that an honest person could easily arrive at and express the opinion expressed by the defendant in his claim.
As the substantial truth of the facts alleged had been established, the court said it was not required to assess the other pleas raised by the defendants in their respective replies.
The court dismissed the libel case, also ordering Spiteri to bear all costs.
Lawyer Benjamin Valenzia assisted Cassar as legal aid, while lawyer Andrew Saliba assisted the other defendants.