The Times yesterday lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court from a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The appeal was filed by former editor Victor Aquilina, Austin Bencini and journalist Sharon Spiteri against the Attorney General and against lawyer Tonio Azzopardi.

The Times had filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that its fundamental human right to freedom of expression had been violated by two judgments delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court and the Court of Appeal in the libel suit filed against it by Dr Azzopardi.

The case goes back to June 21, 1995, when The Times published a report entitled Lawyer Found In Contempt Of Court with reference to Dr Azzopardi. On that same day, Dr Azzopardi had protested against the report and had insisted upon a correction.

On June 22, 1995, The Times had published a correction entitled Lawyer Not Found Guilty In Contempt Of Court. But Dr Azzopardi filed libel proceedings against Mr Aquilina, Ms Spiteri and Dr Bencini.

In November 1999 the First Hall of the Civil Court had found in favour of Dr Azzopardi and had ordered The Times to pay Dr Azzopardi Lm300 in libel damages.

Mr Aquilina, Ms Spiteri and Dr Bencini had then appealed to the Court of Appeal which had, on June 27, 2003, confirmed the first court's judgment. The Times then filed its constitutional application which was also dismissed by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

In yesterday's application of appeal, The Times claimed that the first court had been incorrect when it had accepted that journalistic reporting was to be of an absolute standard without taking into consideration the facts of the case.

According to The Times, the report published on June 21, 1995, was in good faith and had faithfully reported facts that had occurred in the course of criminal proceedings.

The facts had also been corroborated by the prosecuting officer in that case.

The Times pointed out that a newspaper was entitled, through its right of freedom of expression, to publish information that it had established. The Times had established that Dr Azzopardi had been found guilty of contempt of court as its reporter, Ms Spiteri, had heard this said. It was also clear that she had not been mistaken as her version had been corroborated by the prosecuting officer in the case.

The Times further pointed out that the written record of the court proceedings did not state that Dr Azzopardi had been found guilty of contempt of court.

On June 22, 1995, The Times had published the content of the written record of the court proceedings. Thus, The Times had published, over two days, exactly what happened in the courtroom.

In conclusion Mr Aquilina, Ms Spiteri and Dr Bencini requested the Constitutional Court to overturn the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional application and to instead find that their fundamental human right of freedom of expression had been violated by the judgments delivered in Dr Azzopardi's libel suit.

Lawyer Stefan Frendo acted for The Times.