Court finds Labour Party candidate’s honesty, integrity were not ‘attacked’

The Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, in the case “Lawrence Mintoff vs Roger de Giorgio and Roderick Agius”, on January 31, 2011 held (among other things), that the acts of any government had to be transparent and beyond suspicion. It was up to the government to prove the contrary. The media had a right and duty to disclose any suspicion of favouritism. There could be no libel, especially if its report was reasonable.

The facts in this case were as follows.

On November 13, 1998, Net TV reported with some prominence in a news bulletin that Mr Mintoff, an architect, was awarded a contract to design Mater Dei Hospital together with English architects Normand Dawborn, which was two million liri more than the lowest tender.

Film footage captured Mr Mintoff entering the Labour Party headquarters in the company of Alfred Sant – hence the implication was that the Labour government of the day had had awarded the contract to Mr Mintoff owing to his political connections.

Mr Mintoff was a Labour candidate at the time.

Mr Mintoff felt libelled by the report. He claimed that facts were attributed to him with the purpose of offending his honour and reput-ation as well as to expose him to ridicule and public contempt.

He denied the allegation in the report and said that it was solely intended to cause him harm, both in his political and professional life.

Faced with the situation, Mr Mintoff proceeded to file legal proceedings against Dr de Giorgio and Mr Agius under the Press Act Chapter 248 of the laws of Malta, requesting the court:

to declare that the report carried on Net TV on November 13, 1998 was libellous, and intended to harm his reputation;

to condemn Dr de Giorgio and Mr Agius to pay him compensation, in the amount to be determined by the court, as compensation for moral damages suffered.

Both Dr de Giorgio and Mr Agius, editor and journalist respectively, contested the libel action. It was stated that the report contained facts which were true, and in this respect, the report should be considered to be “fair comment”, which was acceptable in a democratic society.

On November 16, 2007 the First Hall Civil Court accepted all architect Mintoff ’s requests and condemned defendants to pay Lm600 compensation, with legal interests.

The court noted that the contents of the report were in fact correct. Mr Mintoff admitted that he was a Labour candidate and that the contract was awarded by a Labour government as mentioned in the Net TV news report.

It resulted that after a change of government, the contract with Mr Mintoff was terminated by the Nationalist government.

Mr Mintoff complained that the report was part of a media campaign carried out by the PN to discredit him, without regard to technical considerations.

The First Hall Civil Court said that a balance had to be struck between the right of society and the rights of an individual to safeguard his good reputation; re V. Borg vs V. Camilleri (CA) dated November 15, 1994.

Every person had the right to free expression but such right should not be abused. It could not be used to ruin another person’s reputation by attributing facts which were false.

The right of freedom of expression exceeded the limits of what was reasonably tolerated when another person’s rights were violated; re Hon. C. Buhagiar vs R. Bugeja (PA) dated January 19, 1996.

If the defence of fair comment was raised, it had to be proven that the comments were fair and in good faith. A comment could not be deemed to be fair if the facts were false.

In this case, the report was based on facts which were essentially correct. However, the report implied that Mr Mintoff was awarded a contract owing to his political connections. This allegation, the court said, was not proven. Nor could it be stated that the allegation was fair and made in good faith.

The First Hall Civil Court was of the opinion that the report was libellous.

In regard to all circumstances of the case, the implications made in the report and the fact that Mr Mintoff was more irritated by the termination of his contract the court assessed the damages at Lm600.

Aggrieved by the decision of the First Hall Civil Court, Dr de Giorgio and Mr Agius entered an appeal, calling for its revocation. They submitted an appeal that:

there could be no libel if the facts published were true;

comments on facts which were true could not be libellous;

the First Hall Civil Court’s decision denied them the right to free expression.

On January 31, 2011 the Court of Appeal gave judgment by accepting the appeal of Dr de Giorgio and Roderick Agius and by revoking the decision of the First Hall Civil Court.

The following reasons were given for the court’s decision.

It was acceptable for the media to disclose facts involving political persons. Politicians should be prepared to face criticism and receive comments which were reasonable, even if not true.

Insofar as the facts were true, the media could draw its own conclusions, based on a fair and reasonable analysis, provided further the conclusions were reasonable and justifiable in the light of such facts.

A politician had to accept criti-cism relating to both his professional and private life. The media had a right and duty to report activities, involving politicians ’.

In the circumstances, it was reasonable to make the assumptions of favouritism by the Labour government of the day, even if the court did not agree with the implications made in the report.

It was reasonable for a suspicion of favouritism to arise when a contract was awarded by a Labour government to a Labour party candidate. The court said that the media had a right and duty to publicise this suspicion.

The acts of any government had to be transparent and beyond suspicion. It was up to the government to prove the contrary.

By exposing such suspicion, the media could not be found guilty of libel, especially if such conclusions were reasonable.

Reference was made to the case L. Galea vs G. Bedingfield dated January 8, 2010. In this case the court had accepted that there could be libel by innuendo.

Unlike the case L. Galea vs G. Bedingfield , the facts here had been proven, and the implication made by Net TV was reasonable; re Sant vs Bugeja dated March 27, 2007.

The insinuation made by Net TV was not malicious. It was a fair comment which was acceptable in a democratic society.

The court said that the honesty and integrity of Mr Mintoff were not attacked. Criticism was made against the government of the day which was under scrutiny by the media. In addition, while politicians should be expected to tolerate a wider margin of criticism, it did not appear that the report was exaggerated, concluded the Court of Appeal.

Dr Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado & Associates.