A court yesterday ruled that an interview given by a government minister to a journalist of The Times was subject to libel laws.

This preliminary judgment was delivered by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera in a libel action filed by Marlene Mizzi against Minister Austin Gatt.

Ms Mizzi, a former chairman of Sea Malta, had asked the court to declare that an interview entitled No Prospects For National Shipping Line, which appeared in The Times in July 2005, was libellous. The court was also asked to order Dr Gatt to pay libel damages.

However, Dr Gatt submitted that the publication was not actionable in terms of libel law.

Ms Mizzi testified that Dr Gatt's interview followed an interview she herself had given about a speech delivered by Dr Gatt in Parliament. Dr Gatt had explained that he wished to liquidate Sea Malta because Ms Mizzi had wasted money when she was chairman of the company. She had given an interview challenging Dr Gatt to repeat this allegation outside Parliament. Dr Gatt had done so in the interview published in The Times.

Magistrate Scerri Herrera referred to Dr Gatt's submission that no action for damages could be instituted against him in terms of law. The law specified that persons subject to libel action were the author of a publication and the editor of the newspaper and the persons responsible for publication. The law also specified that a case for libel damages could be filed against any person who made a public speech in circumstances which indicated that such speech would be published or broadcast.

Dr Gatt had pleaded that his conversation with the journalist had been a private one and that, therefore, no action for libel could be taken.

The court declared that it could not concur with this submission. Dr Gatt's PRO had requested the interview and it was intended for publication. Dr Gatt had participated in the interview even though he did not know what questions would be asked. It also resulted that Dr Gatt knew that the interview was to be published.

As a result, the interview qualified as a public speech intended for publication. If any other interpretation was allowed, this would mean that an individual could, in the course of an interview, make disparaging or libellous remarks about a third party and not be subject to libel action. This would be contrary to the spirit of the law.

The court, therefore, dismissed Dr Gatt's plea and ordered that the case continues.