Appeal filed in defamation case

John A. Mizzi has filed an appeal after the Civil Court last month found that a letter he had written, published in The Sunday Times on February 20, 1994, was defamatory in respect of the late former Prime Minister, Dr (later Sir) Paul Boffa.

In his writ, Dr Boffa's son, Architect Joseph Boffa claimed that Mr Mizzi's letter entitled "A yacht marina for Xemxija?" was defamatory because his father had never purchased or acquired property in that locality or any other. Mr Mizzi was ordered to pay Lm300 in libel damages to Mr Boffa.

Mr Mizzi had made a number of preliminary pleas. The first, that the plaintiff had no right to seek damages as the late Sir Paul's estate was not affected; also that Mr Boffa's requests were unfounded because the appellant never alleged that the former Prime Minister wanted to construct a residence for his own use in Xemxija but it was his decision as prime minister that allowed construction to take place in that area: hence Mr Mizzi including the phrase "wanted to build there" in his letter.

Mr Mizzi also argued that the letter was not injurious, as the writer did not offend nor sought to offend Dr Boffa's memory. As a journalist, Mr Mizzi said he and Dr Boffa, as prime minister, enjoyed mutual respect; Mr Mizzi was a friend of the Boffa family and this respect lasted until Sir Paul's death.

He later also raised the plea that the dead cannot sue for libel, nor can their widows.

In its judgment the court had rejected all Mr Mizzi's preliminary pleas.

In his appeal petition, Mr Mizzi stated that the arguments in the case were originally heard by another judge. However the case was later assigned to Mr Justice Philip Sciberras last October. The case was decided on October 21 and the arguments were not heard by the new judge who was obliged to do so before passing sentence. According to the judgment, the court had heard the arguments of the case. But the sitting was adjourned to October 21, and there was no doubt that the first court had not heard the arguments.

Mr Mizzi submitted that the case be returned to the first court to check whether the parties had anything to add to their arguments before a sentence was given.

How could the truth of the allegation be proven when Mr Mizzi's main argument was that he never sought to offend the memory of Sir Paul Boffa? He had only mentioned the construction issue and referred to Government files to explain the contents of his letter to the newspaper, which had been misinterpreted by Mr Boffa.

In his petition Mr Mizzi also said the court had not understood the issues raised during the case, nor the explanations given about the phrase "wanted to build there".

According to a Government file, "The land is however a building site and has been acquired for erecting buildings thereon... It is advantageous to Government to exercise the right of pre-emption as the plots fall in a development scheme and may be granted on lease as building sites." Therefore there is no doubt that there was an intention to allow construction in the northern part of St Paul's Bay (not Xemxija).

In his letter, Mr Mizzi continued, he did not allege, directly or indirectly, any wrongdoing on Dr Boffa's part.

Mr Mizzi submitted that if, in a democratic country, a journalist had no right to express his thoughts on such a subject, then freedom of expression was being sacrificed. Article 10 of the European Convention gave him the right to make stronger arguments than he did. By writing "Dr Boffa wanted to build there", Mr Mizzi could never have been libelous.

Mr Mizzi said he sincerely could not understand how the first court had reached its disproportionate conclusion, as if it had ignored his testimony. The court, he said, should not have any doubt that the contents of the published letter were permissible in a democratic society.