Court of Appeal dismisses libel claim by Alfred Sant against The Times

An appeal by former Prime Minister Alfred Sant from a judgment of the Magistrates Court that The Times had not libelled him in a letter was this morning dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The letter, was published on April 1, 2003 under the heading "Uphold democracy".

The first court had found that Dr Sant's complaint was based on two paragraphs of the letter which alleged that after the referendum on Malta's EU accession, Dr Sant had entered the Ta' Qali counting hall accompanied by 20 or 30 persons.

The letter queried whether Dr Sant and his entourage had passed through the security checks. Dr Sant also felt libelled by the allegation in the letter that no one could feel safe in the counting hall.

Dr Sant had denied being accompanied by any persons and to being in breach of any security checks. He had told the court that in his time as leader of the Malta Labour Party he had dispensed with bodyguards and persons accompanying him.

The first court had declared that Dr Sant had arrived at the counting hall in his own car accompanied by then deputy leaders George Vella and Joseph Brincat.

They had passed through the security checks and had not been accompanied by other persons.

However, once they entered the counting hall, they were surrounded by journalists and other persons who were in the counting hall.

The people moved towards Dr Sant asking him for his comments, as there were already indications of the referendum results. At one stage there was confusion when this crowd of persons tried to approach Dr Sant.

The photos taken on this occasion showed the crowd gathered around Dr Sant but at no time was there any violence towards any persons in the counting hall.

It, therefore, clearly resulted as a fact that Dr Sant had not been accompanied by 20 or 30 persons, nor had his arrival at the counting hall been abrupt or simultaneous, as claimed in the letter.

However, any person who had not seen Dr Sant entering the hall would have been justified to think that all those persons surrounding Dr Sant had entered the counting hall with him.

The author of the letter had been justified when he expressed his opinion about security within the Ta’ Qali complex, particularly in the light of the forthcoming general elections in 2003.

An opinion, said the court, could be classified as fair comment even if it was not based upon proven facts. Although the letter might not have been correct, it reflected the author's impression of the scene as it occurred.

Dr Sant then filed an appeal from this judgment claiming that the first court had not been correct as the facts on which the letter was based were wrong.

He claimed that the letter was part of a character assassination campaign where he was portrayed as a person who used violence and threats and did not pass through security checks.

Quoting from local case law Mr Justice Philip Sciberras said that it was not necessary for all the facts indicated by a journalist as the basis of his comments to be exactly correct.

In this particular case, the court considered that the letter’s complaint was directed at the control and security at the Counting Centre.

The author concentrated on commenting and criticising the actions of those responsible for surveillance at the Counting Hall and had not stated that Dr Sant was accompanied by bullies or that his presence in the Counting Hall was a threat to democracy.

The court therefore dismissed Dr Sant's appeal and confirmed the first court's judgment.