Consitutional case dismissed

A constitutional case filed by former Nationalist MP Michael Falzon and Saviour Balzan, the editor of MaltaToday, was dismissed after a court ruled that plaintiffs' rights to freedom of expression had not been violated.

Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi delivered thejudgment in a case filed by Mr Falzon and Mr Balzan against the Attorney General, the director of Courts and Labour MP Michael Falzon.

The court heard that Mr Falzon had written an article entitled "Policing one's enemies" which was published in MaltaToday in May 2007.

Dr Falzon had filed an action for libel damages on the basis that the article was libellous in his regard as it insinuated that he (Dr Falzon) had manipulated the Commissioner of Police into taking action.

The Magistrates Court had found in favour of Dr Falzon and had condemned Mr Falzon and Mr Balzan to pay libel damages of €2,500 and €1,000, respectively.

This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal and Mr Falzon and Mr Balzan then filed a constitutional case claiming that their right to freedom of expression had been violated.

In today's judgment the court pointed out that the facts of the case went back to 2007 on the eve of the general election.

Dr Falzon had made a public speech in the Rabat Labour Centre in which he had mentioned an anonymous email and anonymous mail he had received. Dr Falzon had said that he had filed a report directly with the Police Commissioner.

Architect Falzon had written an opinion piece on this issue in the MaltaToday under the heading "Polciing one's enemies". But Dr Falzon had taken objection to this piece and had filed libel action.

In its judgment the court noted that the gist of the constitutional case appeared to be an attempt to have a revision of two previous court judgments. Plaintiffs were alleging that the Magistrates Court and the Court of Appeal had wrongly interpreted Mr Falzon's article. But this did not of itself mean that the right of freedom of expression had been violated.

One could disagree with the conclusions reached by a court, but that did not mean that a human right had been breached.

The court, therefore, dismissed the constitutional application.