Updated 5.12pm

Former FIAU official Jonathan Ferris has won €3,000 in libel damages against Malta Today managing editor Saviour Balzan over a video blog published five years ago. 

In the video, Balzan drew comparisons between the former police inspector’s work and investigations into the oil procurement scandal to that of the fictional Pink Panther detective Inspector Clouseau.

Balzan also criticised Ferris for having boasted of having prosecuted his own cousin , saying he should have been precluded from doing so and that in any case Ferris’ cousin was found not guilty. 

Delving into caselaw and doctrine the court, presided over by magistrate Victor George Axiak, observed that there was only one meaning which a reader of “ordinary intelligence” could attribute to Balzan’s comments.

Comparing Ferris to the fictional, satirical character of Inspector Clouseau, known for his incompetence as a detective, implied that the applicant was incompetent when prosecuting various people allegedly involved in the oil procurement scandal.

After closely analysing the minutes of court proceedings against those people - Francis Portelli, Anthony Cassar, Tancred Tabone, Tarcisio Mifsud, Alfred Mallia and Frank Sammut - the court observed that out of some 146 sittings and 78 witnesses, it was only in a minor percentage of sittings where no progress was registered for some reason attributable to Ferris. 

The former inspector had handled those cases “in an efficient manner,” summoning witnesses regularly and even earning praise by the magistrates’ court.

As for the case against his father’s cousin, Raymond Ferris, that case was passed on to him when then inspector Angelo Gafa’ had moved to the Malta Security Services, observed the court.

Although Ferris had voiced his unease about the fact that the accused happened to be his second cousin, then police commissioner Peter Paul Zammit had insisted that the inspector was to continue as prosecutor since he was one of the few who knew the case well and also because he trusted him. 

When the case eventually resulted in an acquittal, Ferris had filed an appeal and that was where his involvement in the matter ended. 

When testifying in the libel proceedings, Balzan admitted that he did not know that Ferris had been instructed by the commissioner to continue to handle prosecution against his relative.

Nor was he aware of the magistrate’s praise for Ferris’ work or that Ferris himself had appealed the acquittal against his family member, observed Magistrate Axiak.

Not only did Ferris not abuse of any conflict of interest but he handled his duty well and his relative’s acquittal could in no way be attributed to any fault or shortcoming on his part. 

Balzan had also criticised Ferris for disagreeing with a decision by the FIAU to take him off investigations concerning former Pilatus Bank employee Maria Efimova, since he had previously investigated her for alleged misappropriation. 

That was purely a matter of opinion and that was the only comment in the video blog that was not deemed defamatory by the court.

The rest of Balzan’s comments, although concerning a matter of public interest, were “substantially incorrect.”

Implying that Ferris was incompetent seriously impacted his professionalism as former public officer engaged in roles which were fundamentally pinned upon efficiency and uprightness, remarked Magistrate Axiak.

Moreover, since Balzan himself had testified in those oil scandal cases, he was in a better position to understand that Ferris was handling his duty as prosecutor well. 

The court did not accept Balzan’s argument that this was fair comment and simple criticism over the fact that those oil scandal cases dragged on, leading to no final outcome.

Balzan went beyond “simple harsh criticism” and the “innuendo” in his comments about Ferris’ handling of his cousin’s case, was clear and even more serious since he implied “criminal behaviour,” said the court.

Such allegations were not light, clearly defamatory and intended to tarnish the reputation of Ferris who had since retired from public life, said the court, awarding the applicant €3000 in damages.

Lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel assisted the applicant.