Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera yesterday asked for the criminal libel case she instituted against columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia to be dropped once the columnist admitted in court that she had not verified the facts before writing.

I did not need to make any verification, as my point was about the complaint to the Commission. I did not need to act like an investigating detective

In a three-page application to Magistrate Antonio Micallef Trigona, who is hearing the case, Dr Scerri Herrera said that her complaint about what was written by Ms Caruana Galizia was mainly about specific allegations involving drugs and corruption.

The magistrate quoted paragraphs from the posts that she felt had defamed her and then contrasted the quotes with what was said in court.

In one of the posts involving drugs, Ms Caruana Galizia wrote that Dr Scerri Herrera “throws parties at which plenty of talcum power is thrown around, for example, but she does not use talcum powder herself. She uses deodorant”.

When explaining this in court on September 6, the columnist said: “I want to be clear, I am sure that the complainant (the magistrate) does not do drugs, never has, and as far as I know, she is not the type... she does not even drink and my remarks were not addressed at her.” Later on in the same testimony, Ms Caruana Galizia said she wanted to make it clear she never implied that the magistrate was involved in drugs and talcum powder was not a reference to cocaine.

In a reference to corruption, Ms Caruana Galizia had written: “Shouldn’t you be finding out whether the magistrate pays for her jewellery and catering?”

She had also written: “It is what happened to Noel Arrigo, who should have served as a salutary example but didn’t. The irony is that Arrigo went down for a fraction of what certain other persons are up to because his position was the highest and he was stupid enough to take a bribe directly rather than to have suppliers pay for the catering at his parties or expensive jewellery sent to his door, or cuts on major development deals.”

Then in her testimony, Ms Caruana Galizia said that “she (the magistrate) was offended because she thought I had compared her to Noel Arrigo. I did not compare her to Noel Arrigo, God forbid that we reach a state where we suspect that she can take a bribe from a drug trafficker. I swear that I do not think that is the case.” Later she said, “I know she will not take a bribe, I am saying the opposite. I am saying that I know her and she will not take a bribe from a trafficker,” the magistrate highlighted in the application referring to what Ms Caruana Galizia said.

In a reference to corruption and proceedings against the magistrate by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, the columnist had written: “You would have thought that after the major tip-off I gave them yesterday, MaltaToday would have picked up the story of how Consuelo Herrera is being investigated by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which has received reports of alleged corruption in real estate deals.” In her testimony, Ms Caruana Galizia said that “I did not need to make any verification, as my point was about the complaint to the Commission. I did not need to act like an investigating detective. That is the work of the Commission and I am awaiting the outcome of the Commission’s work.”

Dr Scerri Herrera said the columnist did not need to wait any longer for the outcome of Commission’s work because proceedings had been concluded and she was exonerated.

Lawyer Roberto Montalto, representing Ms Caruana Galizia, said his client did not retract anything that she had written in the blog but rather explained herself further when testifying.

A court sitting is scheduled for Friday where submissions on the application are expected to be made.