A court of appeal has confirmed that a video blog published by Malta Today managing director Saviour Balzan over five years ago about former police inspector Jonathan Ferris was defamatory, partly based on incomplete information.

The blog was carried under the headline “Nothing positive about overdevelopment.” Balzan drew comparisons between the former inspector’s investigative work in the oil procurement scandal to that of the fictional Pink Panther detective Inspector Clouseau.

He criticized Ferris for boasting about how he had prosecuted his own cousin, Ray Ferris, saying that the inspector had a conflict of interest and should have been precluded from handling the case.

Ferris filed libel proceedings against Balzan.

Last March, the Magistrates’ Court upheld Ferris’s claims, awarding him €3,000 in damages whilst observing that implying that Ferris was incompetent seriously impacted his professionalism as a former police officer.

Balzan’s comments were deemed as going beyond “simple harsh criticism,” and the “innuendo” about the handling of his cousin’s case was clear and even more serious since it implied “criminal behaviour,” Magistrate Victor George Axiak had observed.

Balzan appealed that judgment.

On Wednesday, Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff confirmed the decision observing that although Balzan insisted that the comments in the video blog were based on facts, in reality he was not only exposing facts but was also voicing an opinion, remarking about Ferris and his work.

Comparing Ferris to the fictional and incompetent character of Inspector Clouseau was intended to ridicule Ferris.

That comment was made with respect to criminal proceedings against a number of individuals allegedly involved in the oil procurement scandal.

The fact that the number of witnesses who testified in those proceedings was not “substantial” was a shortcoming that could not be attributed to Ferris alone, especially since some of the investigations had been handed down to him by predecessors in the police corps.

Certain proceedings also ground to a halt when letters rogatory were sent to foreign authorities.

In truth, work was done even if the end result may not have been as desired or expected.

Ferris’s job was to investigate and arraign persons suspected of breaking the law. The fact that among those charged, persons were acquitted was a fact over which Ferris was not to shoulder responsibility.

As for his comments regarding Ray Ferris, the court observed that Balzan insisted that the family relationship to the then-police inspector was true and hence what he said was ‘fair comment.’

Before the court of first instance, Balzan had declared that he was not aware of the fact that Ferris had informed his superiors that Ray Ferris was his second cousin nor that the magistrate deciding that case had praised the prosecuting inspector’s work.

In fact, the inspector’s superiors had instructed him to continue to handle that case and within the police corps, refusing to carry out an assigned task could be considered as insubordination, observed the Judge.

This meant that Balzan did not have “complete information” when saying that Ferris had a conflict of interest in that case and it was no fair comment to state that Ferris should have willingly refused to take on the investigation.

Based on those facts, Balzan ought not to have reached the conclusion that Ferris had a conflict of interest and thus breached police ethics.

As for the amount of damages awarded by the first court, Mr Justice Mintoff observed that the amount, namely €3,000, was 25% of the sum permissible at law.

The court of appeal concluded that Balzan’s comments did not amount to “fair comment” because he drew a number of “gratuitous and defamatory conclusions” in spite of not having complete information, particularly regarding the investigation about Ray Ferris.

When all was considered, the damages awarded were not high or disproportionate in light of the fact that Balzan’s comments had been directed against a person who held a public office and played such an important role in this investigation.

The court thus rejected the appeal, fully confirming the judgment.

Lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel assisted Ferris.