Newspaper columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia was yesterday awarded Lm1,000 in libel damages over her inclusion in a book published by the Labour Party over Fort Chambray.

Mr Justice Alberto Magri in the Civil Court found in favour of Caruana Galizia after ruling that author Joseph Muscat was motivated to include her in the book to pay her back for writing in criticism of the Labour Party.

Caruana Galizia filed a libel suit against Muscat and the MLP over the publication of the book Roberto Memmo: L-iskandlu ta` Chambray.

The book was published by the MLP and printed and distributed locally in 1998.

Caruana Galizia claimed the blurb declared the book would reveal information about the network of people assisting in the laundering of money deriving from the illegal sale of drugs, contraband in cigarettes and other illegal activities.

The main figure in this network was purported to be lawyer Roberto Memmo who had come to Malta to acquire Fort Chambray in Gozo.

Caruana Galizia said her picture appeared in the book with the caption that she was against criticism of Memmo.

The book also contained two paragraphs giving the impression that she had a personal interest in defending Memmo and that consequently she too formed part of the network, with its Mafia and P2 (a Masonic lodge) connections.

Caruana Galizia declared she had absolutely no connection with Memmo and her inclusion in the book was libellous in her regard.

Mr Justice Magri noted that the facts of the case dated back to December 1992 when the Nationalist government had moved a parliamentary motion for the approval of a 99-year emphyteutical grant of Fort Chambray to Fort Chambray Limited.

Memmo held 51 per cent of the company`s shares while the balance held by the government through Mimcol.

Mr Justice Magri noted that a subsequent Labour government had commissioned Dr Edgar Mizzi to file a report on the matter since it had previously alleged that the grant of Fort Chambray had been made without a call for tenders and under ridiculous conditions.

Dr Mizzi had submitted his report in August, 1997 and had concluded that there were other reasons why one should object to this grant, for allegations had been made that Memmo did not have enough means to carry the project through, that he was a speculator and that he had connections with the P2 Masonic lodge.

Caruana Galizia had expressed an opinion in her newspaper column in The Malta Independent on April 12, 1998, when she had referred to an art exhibition she had attended in Rome.

The exhibition was organised by the `Fondazione Memmo` and various international cultural entities did not seem to have any objection to dealing with the man.

She expressed her consternation about the criticism of Fort Chambray and said it mainly hinged on the allegation that Memmo had participated in P2 rather than on the conditions of the emphyteutical grant.

Mr Justice Magri yesterday ruled that Caruana Galizia`s claim that she had been libelled had been proven.

Muscat, as the book`s author, was entitled to exercise his fundamental human right to freedom of expression, but was also bound to respect other individuals` reputations and rights.

The court added it did not believe that the references to Caruana Galizia or the inclusion of her photo in the book were libellous in themselves.

In fact, Muscat had reported, in part, some of the contents of Caruana Galizia`s column.

But mentioning an individual in a book that dealt with the Mafia and organised crime, and printing her picture with a caption accusing her of failing to criticise Memmo, led to the ordinary reader suspecting a connection with Memmo`s alleged criminal activity.

The book dealt with the Mafia, and everyone was aware of the fact that one of the basic principles of this association was the concept of `omertà` or the imposition of silence on all aspects of the Mafia.

It was therefore easy to associate the accusations made against Caruana Galizia with her affiliation with, or sympathy towards the criminal organisation.

Mr Justice Magri declared that it was a known fact that Caruana Galizia`s political opinions conflicted with those of Muscat and the MLP.

Caruana Galizia regularly contributed to local newspapers and expressed her opinions that were in contrast with the principles of the MLP.

She had every right to do so, while the persons she wrote about had also every right to criticise her, for this was the basis of democracy.

However, it was not correct to make use of a political publication on a scandalous matter to cast a shadow on persons of a contrary opinion.

The court noted that Muscat`s own testimony had shown that he was motivated to include plaintiff in his publication in order to pay her back for some of her writings.

Dr Peter Caruana Galizia and Dr Peter Borg Costanzi were counsel to Caruana Galizia while Dr Paul Lia was counsel to Muscat and the MLP.