Palermo. A judge’s lawsuit against The Guardian’s reporter end without conviction

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:

This is a Judgement of Solomon in the best sense of the word, says Ossigeno  Legal Aid Desk, that assisted the reporter, together with Media Defence – The magistrate’s reputation was damaged but he is not entitled to compensation

OSSIGENO, June 14^th  2025 – The Civil Court of Caltanissetta, in a ruling issued on May 30^th  2025, rejected the claim for damages for defamation sought by magistrate Calogero Ferrara against the journalist Lorenzo Tondo, Italy correspondent for the London newspaper The Guardian. The judge awarded full costs of the litigation, whereby each party pays its own costs. For Ossigeno, “this is a judgement of Solomon in the best sense of the word”.

Regarding the contested articles, published between 2016 and 2019, Lorenzo Tondo was defended by lawyers Andrea Di Pietro and Emilia Faraglia on behalf of The Guardian newspaper. Whilst Tondo was represented by the Legal Aid Desk of Ossigeno per l’Informazione in relation to the publication of a post on his personal Facebook profile.

Calogero Ferrara, former prosecutor in the controversial “Mered trial,” ( a contentious case involving a mistaken identity) filed the lawsuit, claiming that these publications had damaged his professional reputation and demanding compensation for the damages he suffered.

Judge Calogero Cammarata issued a two-pronged ruling. On the one hand, he recognized the journalist’s right to criticize, except for the theoretically  harmful nature of some isolated expressions used by Lorenzo Tondo, deemed to exceed the limits of the right to report and criticize. On the other hand, the judge emphasized in his ruling that Calogero Ferrara had, in his case, failed to provide evidence of actual harm, thus missing the essential element for upholding claims for compensation in civil court.

The ruling establishes that the magistrate cannot obtain compensation for any damages he claims to have suffered because he has neither specified nor documented them.

OSSIGENO “This is a judgement of Solomon in the best sense of the word,” commented Ossigeno President, Alberto Spampinato, “because it refuses to tip the scales one way or the other by deeming the actions of both the accused and the accuser to be not entirely correct. . The judge who issued this ruling has made a great effort to be just that should not be underestimated. He fully balanced the two conflicting interests: that of the journalist, who wants to inform readers about the justice system, and that of the magistrate, who wants to defend his reputation by seeking legal action. The judge concluded that each party legitimately exercised their rights, but with some excesses though without  deserving of punishment. The only substantial consequence of the ruling is that each party must pay their own legal costs. Under Italian current legislation, this is perhaps the most one can hope for from the justice system.”

ASP