A judgment which had awarded former minister Louis Galea €5,000 in libel damages was overturned by a Court of Appeal which ruled that serious and prudent investigative journalism required protection.
The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Albert J Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia following an appeal filed by Joseph Mifsud from a judgment in favour of Dr Galea.
The court heard that in April 1997 Dr Mifsud had issued a press release entitled Se Nibqa Nghid il-Verita' akkost ta' Kollox. Dr Galea had claimed that this was libellous in regard and he had requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to award him damages.
The first court had found in favour of Dr Galea and had ordered Dr Mifsud to pay him damages of €5,000.
On appeal, the court noted that Dr Mifsud had been investigating cases of drug trafficking. In the course of his journalistic reports he had referred to the diaries of a certain Ciro Del Negro which had been exhibited in court in legal proceedings relating to drugs.
The diaries referred to a number of persons, including Joe Galea (who was Dr Galea's brother) and Norman Bezzina who, at the time was employed in Dr Galea's secretariat.
Dr Mifsud had referred to this in his reports and had mentioned Dr Galea as being related to Joe Galea. But Dr Mifsud had not alleged that Dr Galea was personally involved in drug trafficking. This notwithstanding, Dr Galea had accused Dr Mifsud of character assassination.
Dr Mifsud had retaliated by issuing the press release in which he said that Dr Galea ought to help uncover the truth.
Bearing this context of affairs in mind, the Court of Appeal ruled that the press release was not libellous. As a person in public life Dr Galea was expected to put up with far more criticism than a private person.
When one entered politics one should expect to be involved in investigations that could directly affect members of his family, for all allegations against them had to be thoroughly investigated.
Investigative journalism deserved full protection in a democratic society, provided that the journalism was serious and prudent. In such a case, even genuine errors could be tolerated.
The European Court of Human Rights had ruled that the public had the right to be informed about investigations about political activities.
The Court of Appeal then proceeded to overturn the first court's judgment.