Former police chief wins libel damages

Former Police Commissioner Lawrence Pullicino was yesterday awarded a total of Lm600 in libel damages by Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Dr Pullicino had claimed, in a writ filed in 1998, that he had been libelled in the course of a news bulletin broadcast on April 22, 1997, on Radio 101, and he requested the court to condemn Gordon Pisani, as the author of the news item, and Richard Muscat as the then editor radio station, to pay him libel damages.

Defendants claimed that the news item in question constituted fair comment permissible at law, and that it was not libellous.

The court heard Dr Pullicino submit that the item was libellous as it had alleged that he had been given privileged treatment while in prison.

Witnesses produced by defendants had testified that Dr Pullicino had not worked while he was a prison inmate.

However, other evidence produced showed that plaintiff had worked in the dog section and had done gardening work.

Other allegations made in the news bulletin had also resulted to be untrue.

Thus, while the item had claimed that Dr Pullicino was not locked in his cell between 12.20 p.m. and 2 p.m., the court heard that this was a concession given to all those inmates who worked.

There was one occasion when Dr Pullicino had not been in his sell at 8.30 p.m., but it resulted that plaintiff had been in the office of Inspector Gatt with the latter's consent.

The bulletin added that plaintiff had been allowed by the outside gate, even though this was a prohibited area, but Dr Pullicino rebutted that he was there because he was carrying out work near the prison outside gate.

Although the bulletin alleged that Dr Pullicino was allowed more contact visits than other prisoners, this did not result from the evidence.

Nor did it result that his contact visits lasted longer than those of other prisoners.

Defendants had alleged that Dr Pullicino used to be escorted to hospital by two officers of the special response team when in reality he ought to have been escorted by officers of the mobile squad.

They also submitted that he had not been handcuffed. However, it resulted that the decision as to whether or not to handcuff a prisoner was within the discretion of the officer who was escorting such prisoner.

The court concluded that defendants had not managed to prove the truth of the allegations made in the bulletin.

These allegations had been contradicted both by plaintiff and also by prison officials.

The defence of fair comment could not therefore be successful in this case. Defendants' allegations about Dr Pullicino were not fair as they were not based upon facts that were substantially true.

The court therefore condemned Mr Muscat to pay Dr Pullicino Lm100 while Mr Pisani was ordered to pay plaintiff Lm500 in libel damages.