A Constitutional Court has been asked to examine whether simultaneous civil and criminal libel suits instituted by Richard Cachia Caruana breach the human right to freedom of expression.
The request for a reference to the Constitutional Court, upheld by Magistrate Francesco Depas-quale, was made by Minister Joe Mizzi and former One TV journalist Kurt Farrugia.
They claimed the libel suits were not intended to protect the complainant’s reputation but to prevent them from exercising their right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest.
Mr Cachia Caruana, the former Maltese ambassador to the EU, has claimed allegations made on One Television in July 2012 were aimed at tarnishing his reputation. Mr Mizzi had claimed that Mr Cachia Caruana had interfered in police investigations into an alleged drug party on a yacht.
Both the former ambassador and the ex-police commissioner George Grech denied the allegation.
The fact the criminal case and the civil case were being heard by the same court could lead to a breach of their right to a fair hearing
In their application requesting a constitutional reference, Mr Mizzi and Mr Farrugia observed that libel law was, in itself, a limitation on freedom of speech and should therefore only be used as an extraordinary legal step when no other effective remedy existed at law.
They also argued that the fact the criminal case and the civil case were being heard by the same court could lead to a breach of their right to a fair hearing.
In his decree, Magistrate Depasquale started by noting that the Constitutional reference was only being made three years after the case was tabled, and after all witnesses had been heard.
But while the court could have easily reached the conclusion that this was simply an attempt to draw the case out further, it was duty bound to consider all requests to ensure a fair hearing while protecting freedom of expression. He dismissed as frivolous the complaint of a breach of fair hearing, pointing out that the legal parameters upon which criminal cases and civil cases must be decided by any court were different, as was the level of proof required.
On the contrary, it was beneficial to have the same magistrate presiding over the two cases, apart from being more practical.
On the other complaint – that the case could have an effect on their freedom of expression – the magistrate decreed that this was a valid point meriting examination by a civil court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
The magistrate therefore referred the matter to a higher court, to decide whether the simultaneous action was potentially in breach of human rights.
The court is also to decide if filing the two cases was aimed at stopping the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.