April 1997 - Dr. Joe Mifsud, who at the time was a journalist (and is now a lawyer) issued a press release entitled Se Nibqa' Nghid il-Verità Akkost ta' Kollox.
The press release referred to a journalistic investigation that he had carried out in connection with a book he authored - Id-Djarju ta' Ciro del Negro.
The book speaks of drug trafficking in Malta and abroad, and implicated people connected to Maltese politicians.
One of these politicians was Dr Louis Galea, who at the time was a PN Cabinet Minister for Social Policy.
Dr Galea felt libelled by the book as well as the press release, and sued Mifsud for both. Years (and years and years) later, Galea won both cases, and Mifsud was ordered to pay €2,000 in damages for the contents of the book, and €5,000 for the contents of the press release.
I shall not bother asking (again) why such cases take over 10 years to come to an end, and not because it will put some very pompous people between a rock and hard place, but because my issue is of another nature.
The story about Louis Galea emerging victorious (and implicitly innocent), was all over the media. It was covered over and over again, with no different angles but as a continuous emphasis that the former PN minister had won the case against Mifsud – 'Damages to former Minister', 'Louis Galea wins Libel case', 'Ex Minister wins €5,000 damages', 'Louis Galea jirbaħ kawża ta' libell kontra Joe Mifsud'.....tra la la la la.
Now, take a long deep breath and fast forward to 2012, to last week to be precise....when the ruling against Mifsud was overturned by the Court of Appeal!
That's right it was overturned, but low and behold, this time, I only managed to find one lonely story about the matter; it was carried by this paper.
According to the report, the ruling was made by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, who noted that at the time of the incident, Dr Galea was a member of Parliament, and that a person in public life, especially in politics, is expected to put up with far more public scrutiny and criticism.
People in public life, they said, should also expect to be part of investigative actions, and that their families could be affected through such probing. The Judges went on to explain that this sort of investigative journalism should be protected and that genuine errors are to be tolerated.
Kudos!
Finally, some respect for prudent investigative journalism... right?
What gets my goat (as something always must) is that when it came to protecting the reputation of one sole politician, the media were all over the story, but when it came to protecting one of their own, and ultimately their profession, the story was no bigger than that of the three legged squirrel in Denmark....that's right, what squirrel in Denmark?
And, in the meantime, we have the nerve to get our knickers in a knot about ACTA!
Puhlease!