Judge confirms libel damages

The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a libel judgment delivered by the Magistrates' Court whereby a doctor was awarded Lm4,000 libel damages.

Louis Buhagiar had sued Saviour Balzan, as editor of the newspaper MaltaToday, and Kurt Sansone, the author of an article. Dr Buhagiar claimed he had been libelled by the article entitled Maltese Doctors In UK Insurance Probe, published on May 5, 2002.

The Magistrates' Court had found that the article was degrading to the medical profession as it alleged that a number of tourists had fallen victim to doctors and consultants. It also alleged that among such doctors, whose names had cropped up in relation to unethical behaviour, was a consultant who had been in the spotlight in Malta for charging excessive fees.

No doctor was mentioned by name in the article, but Dr Buhagiar declared that the reference to "a consultant" was in relation to him, as MaltaToday had, in previous issues, mentioned him by name in connection with allegations of levying excessive fees.

The court heard that MaltaToday had, on a weekly basis with effect from April 14, 2002, in a number of articles mostly written by Mr Sansone alleged that Dr Buhagiar was being investigated for over-charging tourists and that he had been an embarrassment to the political party he belonged to.

There was therefore no doubt that the reader of average intelligence who read the article would conclude that the unnamed consultant was Dr Buhagiar.

On whether it could have been a case of fair comment, the Magistrates' Court pointed out that the article had criticised doctors and consultants who chose to send patients to private hospitals even though the medical care required might not necessitate hospitalisation. It was up to the newspaper to prove that the facts described in the article were substantially true in order for the defence of fair comment to be valid.

The first court declared that it resulted from evidence that until May 2002, a number of complaints had been filed against Dr Buhagiar about some bills issued by him. However, Dr Buhagiar had never been censured for any breach of professional ethics and he had not been investigated by the Medical Council.

It also resulted that a complaint filed by a tourist had been referred to the police who had concluded that there had been no infringement of the criminal law. No evidence had been produced in support of patients being hospitalised needlessly.

The Magistrates' Court concluded that, acting solely on the basis of complaints filed by tourist, the newspaper had, with inexplicable zeal and without adequate research, mounted a campaign against Dr Buhagiar about whom it made allegations of abuse of professional ethics.

Mr Balzan was ordered to pay Dr Buhagiar Lm1,500 in damages and Mr Sansone Lm2,500.

They appealed to the Court of Appeal (in its inferior jurisdiction) and Mr Justice Philip Sciberras ruled there was no doubt that the right of freedom of expression in a democratic state was absolute. However, the right of the individual to enjoyment of his honour and reputation was also absolute. In this case, the newspaper had not proven the objective and intrinsic facts of the allegations it made.

The Appeal Court added that the quantum of damages awarded by the Magistrates' Court was also correct for it was to be commensurate with the damage done to a person's reputation.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal filed by Mr Balzan and Mr Sansone and confirmed the judgment of the Magistrates' Court.