Former prison chief loses libel on Illum report claiming he held gun in an inmate’s mouth

The editor of Maltese-language news outlet Illum, Saviour Balzan, and Yendrick Cioffi, a former contributor to the publication, did not libel former prison director Col. Alexander Dalli by reporting the latter as having held a gun in an inmate’s mouth, a court has ruled.

Magistrate Rachel Montebello handed down judgement in the libel case filed by Dalli against Balzan and Cioffi earlier today, in what was the fourth favourable judgement out of the four cases filed as a result of the story - three of which had been filed by Dalli and one by his second in command, Randolph Spiteri.

The plaintiff, Col. Dalli denied putting a gun in the mouth of any inmate, calling the allegation a “barefaced lie.”

Dalli had testified during the proceedings, telling the court that he had been the target of “repeated attacks in the press” over allegations of abusive behaviour. He said that he would only carry his firearm in exceptional circumstances, as stipulated in the Prisons Act and would do so for the safety of inmates, employees and officials.

During his time as director, several very high-risk inmates were being detained at the facility and that in this dangerous environment, he needed to be prepared for every eventuality.

In today’s decision, the court highlighted the testimony of a high-ranking official at the Ministry for Education, who had visited the prison as part of a delegation and had met the plaintiff. During this meeting with the delegation, which included the minister at the time, Evarist Bartolo and his permanent secretary, Frank Fabri, Dalli had spoken about his intention to rehabilitate inmates, explaining that his priority was instilling order and discipline in them. Dalli had recounted how, at the start of his tenure at the helm of CCF, he had gone into the cell occupied by Melchior Spiteri, whom he described as a notorious inmate and ringleader, pulled out a handgun and put it against Spiteri’s mouth, telling him that from that day onwards, it was Dalli who was in charge.

Dalli had also given the delegation a tour of the facility with a handgun holstered on his belt and with a large muzzled dog by his side, the witness said, adding that this had made him feel so uncomfortable that he and his colleague had left before the rest of the delegation.

He had expressed his reservations about Dalli’s behaviour to the Permanent Secretary at the Education Ministry, who replied that the plaintiff was a highly respected person who had managed to solve the problem of widespread drug abuse inside the prison.

Another witness was a former prison guard, who also told the court that Dalli would carry a concealed firearm while inside the facility. He testified to an incident where the prison director had held the firearm against the head of an inmate who had barricaded his cell door with a mattress, threatening to “empty it on him” if he continued to misbehave.

In her decision to dismiss the libel case, Magistrate Montebello observed that the article’s claim was that the plaintiff would abuse his powers by employing extreme disciplinary methods and intimidating the inmates he was responsible for.

Such a claim was inherently capable of diminishing the plaintiff’s reputation, she said.

Lawyer Andrew Saliba, representing Balzan and Cioffi in the proceedings, had argued that the publication of the story had been in the public interest.

The magistrate noted that the Media and Defamation Act did not provide a definition or guidelines to define the concept of public interest, but said that in the understanding of the court, the areas of government administration, public conduct, involvement in serious crimes and issues “such as to affect people at large, that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on; or what may happen to them or to others,” were all to be taken as matters of public interest, as were stories concerning “the conduct of any person that inherently, expressly or inferentially invited public criticism or discussion.”

The second requirement for a successful public interest defence was a subjectively and objectively reasonable belief on the part of the publisher that the publication of the story in question was in the public interest, said the court.

Case law established criteria to answer this question, however, the story at issue was directly concerned with allegations of abuse carried out by none other than the director of the prison, in a place which is not open to the public and which is subjected to strict security controls, which include the scrutiny of all correspondence and communication to and from the prison. Neither was it the first time a story with similar allegations had been published.

Magistrate Montebello said she could not fail to observe that Dalli’s claim of only carrying a firearm in exceptional circumstances had been “entirely contradicted by the precise testimony” of witnesses who had seen him with their own eyes, one witness having seen it on many occasions and the other in a situation in which there had been no danger.

The presence of minor inaccuracies in a report does not invalidate the “public interest” defence, ruled the court.

The court ruled that the requisites for a successful public interest defence had been satisfied and found for the defendants, ruling that the story was being treated as a report in good faith about a matter of public interest and which therefore is not defamatory.

The court stressed, however, that this decision should not be taken to imply that Dalli had not implemented important and positive reforms in the prison, or that he was not a person of integrity or good at his job. Neither did it mean that he was not respected by the inmates or prison officials, said the magistrate. “Because the court is only deciding that the article in question constitutes a publication about a matter of public interest, these aspects of the plaintiff’s moral character remain untouched.”