Woman admits insulting Judge Scerri Herrera on Facebook

A woman accused of launching a barrage of insulting and threatening Facebook posts against Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera pleaded guilty on Monday to the offences brought against her.

Amanda Dimech, 37, entered a guilty plea to charges linked to online comments directed at the judge and legal procurator Kimberley Bickle.

Earlier in the proceedings, the judge had testified about the impact of the posts, saying that “members of the judiciary need serenity to carry out their work”.

Addressing the court, lawyer Matthew Xuereb, appearing parte civile for Scerri Herrera, said the judge was “not after the pound of flesh,” but rather wished to safeguard the dignity of the courts and those who serve within them.

He stressed that the offences went beyond the remit of ordinary prosecution because they struck at individuals “who represent the authority of the highest criminal courts” and who carry out their duties “with exactness, sometimes even to the detriment of their personal lives”.

“The offences were serious,” Xuereb said, referring to the insults, threats and harassment involved. “Freedom of expression is a beautiful thing, but it cannot be used wrongly against those entrusted with protecting those very rights.”

He described the language used as “offensive” and far beyond “any acceptable notion of provocation”.

The posts, he said, targeted a person who symbolised justice in Malta.

“The police acted not only in the interest of Judge Scerri Herrera, but in defence of the judiciary in this country,” he said.

Xuereb suggested the court impose a suspended sentence tied to Dimech’s conduct for a specified period, saying she should bear full responsibility for her actions. 

Defence lawyer Axl Camilleri pointed to his client’s remorse and her decision to plead guilty at an early stage of the proceedings.

“It does not mean she is sorry only today,” he said. “Today was the opportunity for her to apologise before the court. From the outset, she expressed the wish to admit the charges and state that she regrets what happened.”

Camilleri said Dimech was not attempting to justify the messages in any way and acknowledged they were “wrong and should never have been written”.

He also referred to the circumstances that had led to the posts, saying his client had felt frustrated by ongoing court proceedings in front of the Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction and had mistakenly directed her anger at the judge, despite the fact that Scerri Herrera had no involvement in the issues she was complaining about.

The lawyer noted that Judge Scerri Herrera had given detailed testimony explaining the background to the case and clarifying that many of the allegations levelled against her related to matters entirely outside her control.

Camilleri told the court his client accepted that the language she used could “under no circumstances” be accepted. 

He added that the defence had no objection to the imposition of a suspended sentence “in its maximum form”. He insisted Dimech was not a habitual offender.

The court was also requested to issue a restraining order.

Dimech was instructed to communicate with Scerri Herrera only through her lawyers in relation to the ongoing case over which she is presiding.

In earlier sittings, Madam Justice Scerri Herrera testified that she filed the criminal complaint not for herself, but “for all members of the judiciary”. 

She insisted that criticism of court decisions should be pursued through the appropriate legal channels rather than social media.

Sentencing was adjourned to July.

Superintendent Josric Mifsud and Inspector Andrew Agius Bonello prosecuted. 

Lawyer Matthew Xuereb appeared for the parte civile, while lawyer Axl Camilleri represented the accused.