Criminal court clears former editor of defaming Mintoff...

The Criminal Court yesterday acquitted the former editor of The Times, Victor Aquilina, of charges of defamation brought against him by former prime minister Dom Mintoff.

Mintoff had requested that Aquilina be charged with defamation following the publication of a letter headed "Mintoff's largesse" published in The Times on October 14, 2002.

In yesterday's judgment, Magistrate Michael Mallia noted that Aquilina had pleaded that the facts contained in the letter were true, while the comments in the letter were perfectly permissible in a democratic society where the principle of freedom of expression prevailed.

The defendant also pleaded that the letter was not defamatory in terms of the Press Act.

He pleaded that the publication of the letter was protected by qualified privilege for the letter's author had commented on a report, published in The Times on September 16, 2002, of a speech delivered by Finance Minister John Dalli at the Floriana Granaries two days previously.

As the speech was made in public and as the minister was aware that its contents would be reported and published in the newspapers (as in fact occurred), the qualified privilege established by law was applicable.

Magistrate Mallia pointed out that the letter had been signed by a J.E. Agius of Attard.

Attard had alleged that 14 per cent of shares in Bank of Valletta, which had been assigned to Banco di Sicilia, had been given away for free. He requested an explanation as to how Mintoff had carried out this act.

On his part, Mintoff complained that the letter was defamatory as it alleged that he had not been prudent in his management of public funds.

Examining the letter, the court explained that the word "largesse" meant a present, prize, generous consideration or liberality in the grant of a thing.

Mintoff's objection was based on the fact that it was not true that BOV shares had been granted with liberality to Banco di Sicilia.

From the evidence it resulted that Banco di Sicilia had paid slightly over Lm800,000 for the shares and that this sum had given rise to political controversy, for Minister Dalli had expressed his political opinion (when replying to a parliamentary question) that the shares had been given away for nothing, after taking into consideration the current share value and the gains that had been made from them.

Dalli's comments had been reported in both In-Nazzjon and The Times on July 4, 2002.

It further resulted that Dalli had repeated his view on the matter in the public speech he had made at the Floriana Granaries on September 14, 2002, and it was the minister's comments that had led Agius to write his letter to The Times asking why no investigations had been carried out into the matter.

The court concluded that Banco di Sicilia had paid a consideration for the shares but whether the payment was justifiable was another matter as it was subject to different interpretations and opinions.

It was not the court's role to consider and evaluate Dalli's comments as reflected in Agius' letter, as these would be evaluated by history, after some time had elapsed, without political obfuscation. In this manner, a technical examination of this matter and of Mintoff's course of action in the course of his political life would be carried out. Until this was done, everyone was free to comment, so long as facts were not sacrificed.

Agius had imputed Mintoff with a certain liberality with public funds when he had alleged that the shares had been given away for nothing, but it had been proven that this was not the fact, for Banco di Sicilia had paid for the shares.

Agius had repeated what Dalli had said in a public meeting.

The court added that Dalli was free to make value judgments on the facts in his possession and could agree or otherwise with whether the payment for the shares had been justified or not.

Both In-Nazzjon and The Times had reported Dalli's comments on the matter.

The Press Act, said Magistrate Mallia, exempted a newspaper editor from responsibility if the publication was reasonably justified in a democratic society, and consisted in a faithful report of a speech made at a public event by an identified person who knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, that his speech would be reported by the media.

All these elements had been proven to exist in this case.

Foreign case law on the subject of qualified privilege tended to extend this concept to matters of public interest and concerning political figures.

The Supreme Court of the US had, in 1964 concluded that a public officer was not entitled to damages for defamation concerning his official work unless it was clearly proven that the person responsible for the defamation knew of its falsehood or did not care whether it was false or not.

This element of falsehood did not exist in this particular case, said the court, and Mintoff had been at liberty to rebut the comments made by Dalli with his own comments or opinions. However, Mintoff had not taken this course of action and had requested the police to institute criminal action against The Times for reasons that were very different to the content of the letter complained of.

Mintoff had, in his testimony, mentioned an agreement he had reached with The Times in different circumstances. This agreement had, contrary to Mintoff's expectations, not been published by the newspaper.

Magistrate Mallia added that local case law had concluded that a politician had to be more tolerant than others towards criticism, save for when he was attacked personally. There was no doubt that Mintoff had been and still was a politician.

The court concluded that there had been no personal attack on Mintoff, but the publication of a comment in the context of a political discussion that had commenced some months earlier.

The court therefore acquitted Aquilina of the charges against him.