Ex-MLP leader loses appeal in libel case against The Times

The court of appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment which found that a letter published by The Times had not been libellous to former Labour leader Alfred Sant.

The letter, which appeared on April 1, 2003 entitled Uphold Democracy, referred to Dr Sant's arrival at the counting hall during the EU accession referendum.

Dr Sant had denied having been accompanied by many people as, he said, the letter implied. He also denied any breach of security arrangements. He had told the court that in his time as party leader he had dispensed with bodyguards and persons accompanying him.

The Magistrates' Court had declared that Dr Sant had arrived at the counting hall in his own car accompanied by 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 people who were in the counting hall.

The media people approached Dr Sant asking him for his comments as there were already indications of the referendum result. At one stage, there was confusion when this crowd of people tried approaching Dr Sant.

It clearly resulted as a fact that Dr Sant had not been accompanied by 20 or 30 persons, as mentioned in the letter, nor had his arrival at the counting hall been abrupt. However, any person who had not seen Dr Sant entering the hall would have been justified to think that all the 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 election in 2003. An opinion, the court had ruled, could be classified as fair comment even if it were not based on proven facts. The letter might not have been correct but it reflected the author's impression of the scene as it occurred.

Dr Sant appealed, claiming that the first court had not been correct because the facts on which the letter was based were wrong. He argued that the letter was part of a character assassination campaign portraying him as a person who used violence and threats and did not pass through security checks.

Quoting from case law, Mr Justice Philip Sciberras, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said 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 complained of was directed at the control and security at the counting centre. The author focused on commenting and criticising the actions of those responsible for surveillance at the counting hall. At no time had the letter said 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.