Christian Peregin
Magistrate reports columnist to police
Allegations viewed 'with the utmost seriousness'
Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera has filed a police report to "protect her integrity" from allegations levelled against her by columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
The magistrate also abstained from presiding over two unrelated libel hearings involving Ms Caruana Galizia, one of which was scheduled for next week.
In a series of blog entries last week, Ms Caruana Galizia criticised the magistrate, arguing that her behaviour was inappropriate for someone in her position.
Ms Caruana Galizia also said she was "petitioning the Chief Justice" to get the magistrate off the libel cases in question.
One of them was instituted by the head of the defunct Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana, Martin Degiorgio, against Ms Caruana Galizia and the other was by the columnist against the editor of Labour's online portal Maltastar.
The magistrate yesterday issued a decree informing the parties involved she was abstaining from presiding over the cases and that she had filed a police report due to what Ms Caruana Galizia wrote about her.
Dr Scerri Herrera's office refused to give out the court decree or to make any public comments, so it is still unclear what she has asked the police to investigate.
The police would not give such information either, saying it was "unethical" to do so.
However, legal experts said Ms Caruana Galizia's blog entries could be considered a criminal offence unrelated to libel.
They quoted article 93 of the Criminal Code which talks about "reviling a public official" to "intimidate or unlawfully influence them in the exercise of their functions".
This would make Ms Caruana Galizia liable to imprisonment of between one and three months or a fine if found guilty. The penalty could be aggravated if, for instance, "the object of the vilification is that of damaging or diminishing the reputation of the person against whom it is directed".
When contacted, the Ministry of Justice said Ms Caruana Galizia's allegations were being viewed "with the utmost seriousness" but it did not have the power to take any action because the competent institutions were independent of the government.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Peter Bonnici
Feb 7th 2010, 11:14
@ MG Farrugia. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
M.G. Farrugia
Feb 6th 2010, 10:24
Ms. Caruana Galizia taħseb li l-pinna hija aqwa mix-xabla. Ix-xabla hija parti mill-arma tal-Gustizija u wieħed jispera li x-xabla taghmel justizja u tipprova li hija aqwa mill-pinna.
James A. Tyrrell
Feb 5th 2010, 23:58
@ John Lane. I would say John that you are on equally shaky ground here. Wouldn't you agree that a magistrate by the very nature of their position must be seen as whiter than white? Surely then any attack on a magistrate whether it refers to the exercise of her official functions or not is going to have a damaging effect on those functions.
J Farrugia
Feb 5th 2010, 18:06
As usual Prof John Lane is always right on the spot. Thanks Profs Lane for showing one and all what honesty and seriousness really means.
John Lane
Feb 5th 2010, 13:54
The legal experts who are quoting Article 93 of the Criminal Code appear to be on shaky grounds. The Article in question does indeed provide for punishment of someone who vilifies a judge or magistrate. However, this applies only while "in the exercise of his functions." The lamentable blog entries sounded rather libelous but they did not refer to conduct involving the magistrate's exercise of her official functions.
Charles Sammut
Feb 5th 2010, 11:22
I certainly do not want to take sides in what has degenerated into an all out cat fight with claws extended and fangs bared.
But let us take a hypothetical case, is exposing a truth tantamount to defamation or intimidation?
MSciberras
Feb 5th 2010, 11:17
This is not just a case about a magistrate and a party and a little black dress. In the blog, a very serious allegation has been made that a serving magistrate is under investigation by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, or some entity to that name, and whats more, this investigation has been going on for a year!!!!! True or not? If true, why is the investigation takling so long, why has this not been publicised and why does a magistrate or judge continue to serve while under investigation? All Malta has recently witnessed, in disbelief, how judges, no less, did not appear to have a shred of insight as to how to conduct their private relationships and the contempt with which they held their own office and status. Our judiciary is an essential part of our democracy and its integrity must be protected. The Ministry of Justice's reaction to all this, as outlined hereunder also raises some very interesting questions.....