The University rector yesterday indicated he would not have reported an undergraduate to police for publishing an explicit story in a student newspaper had the law been clearer, though he sees no reason to apologise.

A rector’s job is not to uphold some draconian censorship law on campus

The court’s acquittal of Realtà editor Mark Camilleri and author Alex Vella Gera last week provided a clear interpretation of an unclear law, according to Juanito Camilleri.

“Given the legal advice I had at the time, I felt duty-bound to refer the case to the police. I would not feel duty-bound to act in the same way today since the ruling clearly manifests the court’s interpretation of the law. Had the law been clearer then I would most certainly have acted differently,” Prof. Camilleri told The Sunday Times.

The court last week turned down the Attorney General’s appeal in a case which started in 2009. In the first instance court decision the men were also acquitted due to the fictional nature of the controversial first-person narrative.

“I am not one who has any difficulty apologising for any wrongdoing. Nor do I claim infallibility. In this case, I acted on legal advice and as I felt I was duty-bound to do at law. I am afraid that I cannot apologise for that,” Prof. Camilleri said, in response to calls for his resignation over the incident.

“Whether it is a fictional story or not is beside the point as far as I am concerned. I was not acting from a moral standpoint, nor as a literary critic... I acted with prudence and referred the matter to the police for their consideration because it was not at all clear whether the text, the way it was presented without disclaimer, and the way it was being distributed, even to minors, was in breach of the law or not.”

He said that at the time no one could foresee how the courts would interpret the law since it was unclear and there were no precedents.

“Had I not referred the matter to the police myself, I am sure that others would have. And in that scenario I was facing the prospect of being prosecuted for failing to act as I am duty-bound to do as rector under the Education Act.”

He added that irrespective of the possible literary, artistic and aesthetic value of the story or his personal taste, “the bottom line” was that he did what he thought was prudent given a law broadly open to interpretation.

“The fact that now we have a clear ruling goes some way towards guiding people about what our courts consider acceptable... [But] I feel that such a law should be refined periodically to ensure it clearly reflects what this society finds acceptable and what it does not.”

Mark Camilleri accused the rector of lacking the spirit of academia, especially if he considered reporting students to the police for publishing fictional stories “prudent”.

“A rector’s job is not to uphold some draconian censorship law on campus. That’s the job of an authoritarian police force. The University of Malta is not an Islamic Madrasah.”

Mr Camilleri said the rector’s justifications were inconsistent throughout, proving his actions were irrational and illogical.

“He once said the story offended women, then he said that children had access and could read the story and finally said he was acting on legal advice.”

The 23-year-old said Realtà editor had been “persecuted” by the University and Junior College authorities since its inception, when it published an article ­indicating that an employer awarded a cleaning tender was employing workers in illegal conditions.

“They never wanted us around, and when they had the slightest opportunity to try to get rid of us, they did it with a bang. However, it ended a bit sour for them, because the end result was that we consolidated our position on campus.”

He added that the rector should now do the decent thing and “pay us back” for the newspapers his staff had destroyed following his orders.

The Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika welcomed the appeals court’s decision.

The Labour Party also demanded an apology from the Prime Minister whose party media, it said, had taken an “extremist” stand against the offending story.