"The defendant's statements are part of the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and do not exceed legitimate criticism (even if unfounded or unfair) of the work carried out by the said magistrates", reads the ruling.

According to the document, the defendant, 65 years old, was charged with 20 crimes of defamation, with publicity and slander, in an aggravated form, against two judges and two public prosecutors, who worked, respectively, in the courts and in the Department of Investigation and Criminal Action, in Pombal, in the District of Leiria.

The two judicial magistrates were in charge of proceedings in which the defendant was a procedural subject, having issued convictions against him.

The magistrates of the Public Prosecution Service were also in charge of proceedings in which the defendant was a procedural subject, "filing or supporting charges against him".

All the magistrates acted in "strict obedience to the rules arising from the Constitution and the law", the ruling argued.

According to the court, it was proven that the defendant wrote, in 2022, in the complaints book of the Court of Pombal and addressed two requests to criminal proceedings of that court, referring to the magistrates.

In one of the complaints, the defendant, with a criminal record for the crimes of insult, slanderous denunciation or defamation, reports irregularities in that court, "namely the preparation and acceptance of (forged) documentation", claiming to have "been unjustly convicted".

In a request, the defendant wrote, among other things, that the magistrates "have always known about these irregularities, and have done nothing", adding: "They have also convicted us in unfair and not very transparent trials".

"It is understood that the defendant's conduct does not constitute the practice by him of the crimes of aggravated defamation of which he is accused", said the collective court, understanding that he expressed "his discontent and indignation with the decisions issued, referring only to the work carried out" by the magistrates and "not to the persons themselves".

Noting that the defendant "does not make any personal consideration" about the four magistrates, "limiting himself to criticising their work in general, to his detriment", the court considered that "the value judgements made by the defendant do not denote a malicious purpose of harming the honour and consideration of the targets".

On the other hand, the court considered that the defendant, "within the scope of the freedom of expression that he enjoys (...), has the right to express his opinion".

"(...) To argue otherwise, in our understanding, is likely to jeopardise the right to defence, the right to indignation and the defendant's own freedom of expression", he added.

When reading the ruling, the presiding judge explained that the court, following case law, understood that the "facts fall within the scope of freedom of expression" and, addressing the defendant, stated: "I can only advise you to stop writing things about whoever it may be".

"This collective considered that this did not constitute a crime of defamation, another court may consider something else", said the judicial magistrate, recalling that, "with his criminal record certificate, it is no longer a fine".

Read Also: President of the STJ says that "something needs to be done" for Justice (Portuguese version)