Magistrate awards Lm600 to journalist in libel case

Journalist Godfrey Grima was yesterday awarded Lm600 in libel damages after the Magistrates' Court ruled that an article published in The Malta Independent on Sunday in July 2004 was libellous.

The article, entitled A Comedy Of Errors, was written by Daphne Caruana Galizia and published by editor Noel Grima.

Godfrey Grima claimed that the article was libellous because it alleged that he lacked experience in the collection of statistics. The article alleged that he had supported Joseph Muscat's candidature for European Parliament election and that he had not participated in the Moviment IVA ghall-Ewropa, the pro-EU accession lobby.

According to Mr Grima, the article also alleged that he was an intimate friend of Opposition Leader Alfred Sant and that his political fervour was greater than his journalistic loyalty.

Mr Grima felt aggrieved by allegations that he was not qualified to write the post-electoral report he had been asked to draw up by the Nationalist Party.

Ms Caruana Galizia, as author of the article, denied any intention of libelling Mr Grima. She argued that the target of the article was not Mr Grima but the Nationalist Party, which had engaged his services to analysis the party's election results. This was because the Malta Labour Party had similarly engaged Mr Grima's services previously. Ms Caruana Galizia told the court it did not make sense for a political party to reveal its internal affairs to a person who had already got to know of the internal affairs of its political rival.

Magistrate Silvio Meli ruled that it was not enough to escape libel liability by claiming that one had not had the intention of offending the subject of an article. What was important was what the reader of ordinary intelligence would understand from the article. It was sufficient if a publication offended the reputation of an individual.

The court noted that Godfrey Grima was a journalist who had practised his profession both locally and abroad for 40 years. His reputation had grown to the extent that the two major political parties in Malta showed their unconditional trust in him.

As a result, Mr Grima was to be deemed a public figure and, as such, rendered himself more open to public scrutiny than a person who was not in public life. Case-law stipulated that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider in the case of a politician than when dealing with a private individual. The court said that a journalist of international reputation could not be deemed a private figure.

Magistrate Meli pointed out that there was only one case of the author exceeding the limits of fair comment and that was the allegation in the article that his Godfrey Grima's political passions overcame his journalistic loyalty. This was a very serious allegation, the court noted, for it attacked his professional credibility.

But this allegation was unfounded, the court added, and this was upheld by the fact that the two political parties involved showed blind trust in Mr Grima's integrity. Neither Ms Caruana Galizia nor the editor had produced any evidence in support of their allegation, the court noted.

In awarding damages, the court took into consideration the fact that Mr Grima was a public figure. Ms Caruana Galizia and the editor were each ordered to pay Mr Grima Lm300 in libel damages.