Magistrate defends right to scrutinise public persons in Vince Farrugia libel

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale has defended the role of investigative journalism as a “public watchdog” in a democratic, free society in a libel case brought by GRTU Director General Vince Farrugia against Orizzont editor Josef Caruana.

Farrugia referred to an editorial in the Labour party daily, published in April 2012 titled “L-isfaxxar ta’ frame-up” (the unravelling of a frame-up), which questioned the probity of the accusation of attempted murder made in the case against the then Vice President of the GRTU, Sandro Chetcuti.

In his editorial, Caruana had opined that the case “had all the ingredients of a clear frame-up” and that, as time went by, “it was becoming crystal clear that there was a covert agreement...to inflate the incident from a punch delivered in the heat of the moment and after provocation, to an ‘attempted homicide.’”

The editorial implicated the police and health services, amongst others, in the alleged drive to create “a storm in a teacup,” driven by Farrugia’s insistence with the media to depict him as the victim.

However, by the time the editorial was published, the Attorney General had withdrawn the attempted homicide charge, replacing it with less serious charges of assault.

In his submissions, Farrugia had described the editorial as “a fairytale, the likes of which is rarely seen in Maltese journalism...the lowest example of the worst of Maltese journalism”.

However, the court noted that the editorial was correct when it said that the charges were being reduced. It also agreed with the decision of the court of Magistrates in the criminal case, where it held that it is not correct for a person to be accused of an offence more grave than the one which actually took place.

It also expressed serious concerns about Farrugia’s attempts to put pressure on witnesses to exaggerate in their testimony, as had been noted by the court of magistrates in its criminal jurisdiction, and which had ordered the Commissioner of Police to investigate.

The court observed that, given the complainant’s status as a political and public person, Farrugia is subject to a higher standard of scrutiny than that applicable to the common citizen.

“It is, in any case, established that the journalist is to be considered as a ‘public watchdog,’ whose role is to inform the citizen about facts related to public persons, which may be in the public interest, after ascertaining their veracity,” said Magistrate Depasquale.

He adjudged the editorial comment to be justified and based on established facts which had been confirmed in court.

“The editorial in question was a comment on factually true events which were performed by a public person and constituted permissible comment in a democratic society, where freedom of expression is in force and protected by the courts”, said the magistrate, rejecting the defamation claim.