Damages in monsignor's case against Church newspaper reduced on appeal

The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the Magistrates Court which had ruled that an article entitled Nafu X'Ahna Naghmlu? (Do we know what we are doing?) published in April 2007 in "Il-Gens" had libelled Mgr Giovanni Gauci. The court, however, reduced the damages awarded to Mgr Gauci from €9,000 to €5823.43

The Magistrates Court had concurred with Mgr Gauci and found that the article was libellous and "poisonous". According to the first court the points raised in the article had not been proven and, indeed, had been proven to be false. The court dismissed the newspaper's pleas that the article consisted offair comment and that its content was substantially correct. The court found that the article was malicious and aimed at attacking the credibility of a man who had dedicated his life to his faith.

The article, written by an anonymous writer, had commented on the functions of a chapel known as Santa Savina in Victoria, which, it said, had been constructed for the purpose of perpetual adoration but that no such adoration was taking place. Its rector is Mgr Gauci.

The article also said that the chapel's façade had not been lit up on the Maundy Thursday prior to publication. The article was declared libellous and the editor, Nicholas Baldacchino, was ordered to pay €9,000 in damages.

Mr Baldacchino then appealed to the Court of Appeal presided over by Mr Justice Philip Sciberras and claimed that the article had not been libellous. Mr Baldacchino further submitted that he had not been granted a fair hearing by the first court and that in any event the damages awarded to Mgr Gauci had been excessive.

But the appellate court dismissed Mr Baldacchino's submissions. Mr Justice Sciberras said that the article had contained two main allegations, namely that the hours of perpetual adoration had been reduced, and that the functions of the church had increased. Evidence produced before the first court contradicted Mr Baldacchino as it resulted that the hours of adoration had increased and that the functions of this church had not increased. There was therefore no correlation between the facts as alleged in the article and reality. The Court of Appeal found nothing to censure in the first court's findings upon the facts of the case. Nor could it be proven that Mr Baldacchino had not been given a fair hearing.

When examining the issue of the damages awarded, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the damages had to be commensurate with the gravity of the libel. Mr Justice Sciberras said that he did not consider the damages of €9,000 were proportionate to the libel. He therefore reduced the damages payable to Mgr Gauci to €5,823.43