Malta does not have a grave problem with freedom of expression, according to the government, even though local courts have been rapped twice for breaching this fundamental human right in the last six months.
These judgements may have painted a skewed picture since there was only one other case, since 1965, in which the European Court of Human Rights found Malta violating freedom of expression.
“This is not perceived as being representative of a serious problem,” a Justice Ministry spokesman told The Times.
“Malta has no cases of journalists being sent to jail or any cases showing a grave problem with freedom of expression.”
The latest judgement, delivered two weeks ago, overturned decisions by Maltese courts against veteran journalist John Mizzi for a letter to the editor which allegedly defamed former Labour Prime Minister Sir Paul Boffa, who died 30 years earlier.
Last June, the European court found this newspaper’s right to freedom of expression was violated when it was found guilty of defaming a lawyer in a report with a statement said by the magistrate in open court but not written in the minutes.
Mr Mizzi was awarded €10,000 in damages, while The Times was awarded €8,000.
An earlier ECHR judgement about freedom of expression in Malta was delivered in January 2010. The Maltese courts had found Mark Lombardo and John Zammit guilty of libelling the Fgura local council but the ECHR overturned the judgement and ordered the damages paid to be refunded.
In all three cases, Malta was not found in violation of the convention because of archaic legislation which breached human rights. Instead, “the three cases in question were ones where the Maltese court applied a rather traditional and strict interpretation of the laws on defamation without allowing enough tolerance, in the opinion of the ECHR, to possibly inexact statements by journalists,” the ministry spokesman said.
He added that whenever the ECHR found Malta acted in breach of the convention, the government sought to take remedial measures, apart from giving the compensation demanded by the judgement.
Asked whether any remedial action was taken following the most recent cases, the spokesman said no changes to the law were necessary because in each case, it was the interpretation of the law that was found to be in breach – not the law itself.
The Labour Party’s culture spokesman Owen Bonnici believes more needs to be done to make sure Maltese courts follow from precedents set by the ECHR. “If need be, Parliament should legislate so that a strong precedent or sentencing policy is set in the field of human rights,” he said.
The government should also be much swifter in amending laws that were found to be in breach of human rights.“The government is failing miserably to react in a timely manner to all those pronouncements.”
He said the Prime Minister had the power to amend laws which have been declared to run counter to the human rights provisions of the Constitution and the European Convention. “From the parliamentary questions I’ve made it transpired that the Prime Minister never used this power.” Once in power, the Labour Party would immediately set into place a mechanism by which the Bills Committee of Parliament would have the power to make such amendments within six months.