Libel damages raised eightfold

An appeal court yesterday increased eightfold the libel damages previously awarded to former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff in a case he had filed against MaltaToday.

The ruling was delivered following Mr Mintoff's appeal from a Magistrates' Court award of Lm250 in libel damages, and the Court of Appeal increased the damages to Lm2,000 after noting that the damages ought to correspond to the severity of the libel suffered.

The court heard that Mr Mintoff had filed his libel suit against Saviour Balzan, editor of MaltaToday. Mr Mintoff had claimed that he was libelled by a series of articles concerning the Bical bank that had appeared in the newspaper between August 24 and October 12, 2003.

According to Mr Mintoff, the articles had alleged that he was the secret architect of the financial collapse of Bical, and that he had done so because the bank's director, Cecil Pace, had refused to collaborate with him.

The articles had specified that Mr Pace had refused to become a Malta Labour Party candidate and had declined to transfer a substantial quantity of shares to people close to Mr Mintoff, even though he had been threatened with arrest.

The Magistrates' Court had concluded that at the time of the Bical collapse, Malta was undergoing construction and reinforcement of its financial institutions and that the bank was one of the foremost financial institutions of the time.

One of this bank's most senior managers had been involved in some transactions to assist the financing of the Nationalist Party press. He had done so without authorisation and without the knowledge of his superiors at the bank.

The bank had found itself in financial difficulties and the Central Bank inspectors had intervened.

The inspectors had concluded that there were serious irregularities and that certain statements allegedly issued by Hambros Bank of London had been printed on paper belonging to Tudor Press, a company belonging to Mr Pace.

It was then that action had been taken against Mr Pace and Bical.

The first court concluded that no political plot had been proven to exist, nor was there any collaboration on the allegation that Mr Pace had been threatened with arrest. On the contrary it resulted that Mr Mintoff, as Prime Minister, was responsible for the country's administration and his intervention in the case fell within this responsibility.

Once the allegations were found to be libellous, the first court ordered Mr Balzan to pay Lm250 in damages to Mr Mintoff.

This sum was established by the court as the parties had declared in court they had reached an agreement save for some side issues.

Mr Mintoff appealed to the Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Philip Sciberras, asking the court to revise the damages awarded to him.

He also claimed that the first court had not ordered the publication of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal said that as Mr Balzan had not appealed from the judgment, then the court had to logically assume that the first court's interpretation of the evidence was substantially correct.

The Court of Appeal said it would only examine whether the damages award was suitable in this particular case. The court noted that even a superficial reading of the articles would undeniably show that the allegations and their frequency were very serious, and this, coupled with the immoderate language used and the general tone, reinforced the libellous attack on Mr Mintoff.

The general principle was that damages had to correspond with the severity of the libel, and it was clear that the first court had not awarded damages that were proportionate to the libel sustained by Mr Mintoff.

Mr Justice Sciberras added that for the damages to be proportionate, they had to be to the tune of Lm2,000, and he ordered Mr Balzan to pay this amount.

Mr Balzan and Roger de Giorgio, director of the company owning MaltaToday, said in a statement they had launched a libel fund. "The decision to launch this libel fund has been taken to safeguard the interests of our readers, the right of the reader to know and, most importantly, the freedom of the press. This case reiterates the need to revisit Malta's Press Act," they said.