Magistrate to file new complaint against Caruana Galizia after court incident
Magistrate Consuelo Scerri-Herrera said today that she would file a complaint to the police against columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia for insulting her as she came out of a court room this afternoon.
The incident happened after the Magistrate gave evidence in the case instituted by the police against Ms Caruana Galizia for allegedly slandering the magistrate in various blogs on her website.
The magistrate claimed that Ms Caruana Galizia called her a liar as they came out of the court.
During her evidence, Magistrate Scerri-Herrera read out the parts of the blogs which she considered as being offensive and denied all claims that had been made.
She insisted that she had not organised any parties where drugs were taken. Nor was there anyone who had a record of taking drugs.
She said she had organised parties for charity, and produced documents to substantiate her testimony.
The magistrate also referred to comments about property in Gozo and said that when this case first came up, she referred to the Commission for the Administration of Justice which confirmed there was no wrongdoing.
During this morning's sitting, the court rejected pleas that the accused was being tried for the same crime twice, because of proceedings instituted against Ms Caruana Galizia by Robert Musumeci.
The court also held that the magistrate had a right to be represented by a private lawyer.
The court turned down a request to issue a protection order for the magistrate by ordering a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate.
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Amanda Mallia
Mar 10th 2010, 21:16
Draw your own conclusions after seeing the following two links:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100310/local/caruana-galizia-case-asst-commissioner-denies-magistrates-claim
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100310/local/justice-commission-says-it-has-taken-no-decisions-on-magistrate-herrera
CVella
Mar 9th 2010, 21:37
Stefan Mallia:
You are correct in saying that what you term 'sub judice' is a practice but you confuse issues when you say it is not a law but those who 'break' it are in contempt of court.
On the contrary, the ECHR ruled in 1979 that the media have a duty - not just a right - to discuss matters of general public interest, regardless of pending litigation. To avoid doing so is a dereliction of duty.
Stefan Mallia
Mar 9th 2010, 11:37
@Anthony Farrugia: No, it is not a way of "gagging the public" because as I clearly stated, it is not a law but a journalistic practice. How you think journalists are "gagging the public" by abiding by their own ethical code of not commenting on ongoing legislation is beyond me. Sub judice is not an "invention of the legal class" because it is not a legal practice - it is a journalistic practice. And yes, it may be used in trials by jury. Call it outdated, unneccesarily servile to the judiciary or whatever you like but to say that it "doesn't exist" when it is clearly used by every media outlet in Malta and thousands abroad is simply ridiculous.
Anthony Mizzi
Mar 9th 2010, 10:43
... and on Woman's day as well .
The Weaker Sex? I have my doubts! : )
Michael Muscat
Mar 9th 2010, 00:36
One asks himself... why is it that certain MINOR cases take 2 years or more to go to trial on our glorious rock and some even take over ten years to reach a judgement and then when a member of the judiciary is concerned things fly into court? I can without a doubt state that we live on an "extraordinary island", governed by justice and free of nepotism. Do you feel protected?
C Gatt
Mar 8th 2010, 20:43
@stefan mallia
" it refers to the journalistic practice of not commenting on things while under judgement in court at the risk of influencing the deliberations of the courts."
So you are saying that a judge can be influenced by the opinions of the general public or newspapers. Don't you think that is a much more serious and worrying implication.. Buttigieg is right sub judice is a myth. An invention of the legal class to stop free comment. Great way to stop any form of criticism.
Anthony Grech
Mar 8th 2010, 20:08
By this reasoning my son could sue his friend who called him a liar the other day. What about the driver who called me an idiot while I was driving? What a joke, this is carzy. The court ought to take these two women outside and tell them to either fight it out or shake hands and forget it. Really, is this why our court system is so slow? The courts are tied up with this nonsense!
CVella
Mar 8th 2010, 18:35
Stefan Mallia:
There is no 'contempt' of court involved when commenting about pending litigation. On the contrary, the relevant court ruling states the opposite of what you claim: the media have not just the right but the duty to discuss matters of general public interest.
Gianni Xuereb
Mar 8th 2010, 18:07
@Anthony Farrugia:
It's a pity 'cos Daphne had a good argument but she horribly failed in delivering it especially when she mentions the talcum powder and all the other slang. It eliminated any credibility (if there was any). And the fact that all this allegedly started when she threw plates at her husband and someone whispered in Daphne's ears that Consy was talking about her doesn't add any credibility to her writings. It's pure personal vengeance. Journalism shouldn't ever go this low. Unfortunately it is. And some "journalists" and "ethical experts" are applauding it. Pity :/
Anthony Farrugia
Mar 8th 2010, 17:55
@Stefan Mallia: By your reasoning, sub judice would then apply to trials by jury? It is also a hand way of gagging public opinion !
Stefan Mallia
Mar 8th 2010, 17:34
@David Buttigieg: What on earth do you mean that sub judice "does not exist"? Sub judice means "under judgement" and, as the name implies, it refers to the journalistic practice of not commenting on things while under judgement in court at the risk of influencing the deliberations of the courts. Whether or not editors might choose to eschew this practice and risk being found in contempt of court is up to them but to say that the concept of not commenting on sub judice legal proceedings "does not exist" is as inaccurate as it is illogical. Sub judice is not and has never been a law in itself.
Anthony Farrugia
Mar 8th 2010, 15:49
Both plaintiff and defendant will have their day in court to disprove or prove what has been stated in the blogs, But imho whoever uploaded those photos on Facebook must either have been naive or publicity-hungry as internet is open to all and sundry ;sometimes vanity blinds one's discretion and one has to bear the consequences.
J.Borg
Mar 8th 2010, 15:18
@ Mr. Farrugia ; I didn't mean that the liberty of opinion is to be hindered. But everyone knows what type of inserts in certain blogs are being allowed. Liberty doesn't mean that one can write and say whatever one thinks......so much so that we have a subjude case as you said!!!!
David Buttigieg
Mar 8th 2010, 15:18
@Anthony Farrugia
"sub judice" does not apply in ANY case, it is actually a myth. Anybody or newspaper (or blog) is free to comment on any case whilst any proceedings are under way.
Legally, "sub judice" does not even exist as most people know it at least.
Anthony Farrugia
Mar 8th 2010, 14:58
J.Borg@: It would have been very funny indeed had the court decided to gag the liberty of expressing one's opinion in a blog, newspaper, verbally................ "sub judice" does not apply in this case. Somebody must be feeling the heat in the kitchen.
J.Borg
Mar 8th 2010, 14:43
"The court turned down a request to issue a protection order for the magistrate by ordering a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate."
This seems funny, as since there are proceeding in court.....are we to assume that anyone can write against the magistrate in one's blog!!!!!!!
Mario Caruana
Mar 8th 2010, 14:43
......and the soap opera goes on...... and on......