Former Labour minister Joe Grima has been ordered to pay €5,000 in libel damages over two Facebook comments he posted in August 2012.

They alleged that Malta’s former permanent representative to the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana, was selling his “Valletta villa” for €5 million.

Mr Grima also claimed that Mr Cachia Caruana was boasting that his was “the only villa that could have a permit for a swimming pool”.

Both allegations were denied by Mr Cachia Caruana, who insisted that he did not own a house in Valletta but had a house of character in Mdina with a swimming pool, which was not for sale.

Mr Cachia Caruana argued in court that Mr Grima may have mistakenly referred to the sale of another Mdina house that was advertised in a property magazine at the time for €5 million. This house did not belong to Mr Cachia Caruana.

When delivering judgment, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale said the first allegation that Mr Cachia Caruana owned a villa in Valletta was “erroneous” but on its own did not constitute libel.

However, he ruled that the allegation, which implied that Mr Cachia Caruana enjoyed some form of privilege to obtain “an exclusive” permit for a swimming pool, was libellous and tarnished his reputation.

Magistrate Depasquale said Mr Grima provided no proof to substantiate the claim, while proof presented by Mr Cachia Caruana showed that his was not the only house in Mdina to have a permit for a pool.

But the court also ruled on an objection raised at the start of the proceedings by Mr Grima, who insisted Mr Cachia Caruana had to prove he was the author of the posts.

Mr Grima repeatedly failed to appear in court to refute a challenge that he was the author and refused, as was his right, to testify.

In his absence, the magistrate noted the court had “absolutely no doubt” that Mr Grima was responsible for what was written on his Facebook page.

Dr Depasquale gave a number of reasons for reaching the conclusion that Mr Grima had written the contested posts: the comments appeared near a photo with Mr Grima’s name and surname; comments underneath the posts from Mr Grima’s Facebook friends showed that most addressed him directly in such a way that made it clear they believed it was him; and Mr Grima never publicly disassociated himself from the libellous posts and never filed a police report that his Facebook page may have been hacked.

The magistrate said the court had no option but to consider the allegations in a negative way, especially in today’s world where it was easy for people to comment publicly on anything via social networks like Facebook.

Dr Depasquale said this was leading to reputations being tarnished without the person involved having any means of redress except by instituting a court case.

“This is abuse of freedom of expression,” he ruled.

Mr Grima said he will be appealing the judgment on the grounds that the burden of proof to establish whether he was the author of the posts lay with Mr Cachia Caruana.

“Mr Cachia Caruana made no attempt to do so during the case,” Mr Grima said.

Facebook can land you in big trouble

This is not the first judgment to find someone guilty of libel for posting something on the internet but the level of damages awarded in this case is significant.

In the electronic age where anyone can have a public platform via social network sites, Magistrate Franco Depasquale’s underlying message is that posting comments on Facebook should be done responsibly.

Newspaper editors and those responsible for mainstream media websites would know this very well but the responsibility they carry as journalists is also everyone else’s on Facebook.

Kevin Aquilina, dean of the faculty of laws at the University of Malta, argues the case is not a legal first but it puts into perspective the fact that today “everyone is a journalist, a columnist, a communicator” online.

Prof. Aquilina noted that over the past decade there have been numerous libel cases linked to articles and comments posted on websites or blogs. Criminal action had also been taken over hate speech posted online, he said.

“It is established case law that libel legislation extends to all mediums, including social networking sites,” he added.

Philip Manduca, a lawyer, believes judgments like this could warn people not to put posts on the internet that are not factual.

However, Dr Manduca is doubtful whether it should serve as a bigger warning than any past judgments.

“People should have had this awareness even before this judgment. People have to be aware that saying anything that is not factual could damage a person’s reputation, more so on the internet where anything uploaded is almost of a permanent nature.”

ksansone@timesofmalta.com