This feature deals with Maltese court judgments concerning newspapers which, from Independence to date, were taken to supranational courts. Not between 1972 and 1987, when Malta had rejected all independent international overview, and the freedoms of the press had become stretcher cases.
Protection of journalism by the Malta courts vacillated between the robust and the dismally appalling. Not rarely, courts became the accomplices of those who stamped on the press, rather than the last bulwark defending it.
Of four Maltese libel cases decided in Strasbourg so far, one was politically neutral, while the other three were overtly ‘political’. In the three political cases, 12 judgments in all were delivered by 12 different Maltese courts. It must be a coincidence, no doubt it is, but 12 out of those 12 Maltese judgments all favoured the Labour side. Independent and impartial Strasbourg then rubbished those 12-out-of-12 judgments. All 12 were dumped as human-rights garbage.
These four Maltese press cases shared one common feature: the relentless consistency of our courts. In them, different local courts had ruled four times in each case – 16 judgments in all. And our courts got it wrong – wait for it – 16 times out of 16. Such constancy, with not one single freak breaking ranks! An exemplary loyalty to error that must claim several records. Best in Europe?
Chillingly, in all four cases, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the Maltese constitutional courts had battered the freedoms of the press, to side with the oppressor, against the oppressed. The Malta courts got it wrong 100 per cent of the times. These four decided cases will be briefly reviewed.
Local Fgura councillors had debated a road projected through their locality. Some formally proposed public consultations but the majority disagreed. Mark Lombardo and the minority councillors wrote to the press claiming that “The Fgura local council did not consult the public and is ignoring public opinion on the matter”.
The council sued the four councillors for libel. The magistrate found them guilty and fined them €4,000 damages. On appeal, the court confirmed their guilt, reducing the damages.
Lombardo challenged this in the constitutional Civil Court but the judge rejected the human-rights claim. He appealed to the Constitutional Court which detected no interference with freedom of expression.
The councillors then applied to Strasbourg. This, in a 2007 judgement, unanimously found that all the four Maltese courts had violated human rights and condemned Malta to pay €7,500 damages and expenses.
The second case concerned Times of Malta editor Victor Aquilina, Sharon Spiteri, reporter, and Austin Bencini, registered printer. During a bigamy case, the defendant’s lawyer, Dr A, had not turned up. The presiding magistrate, according to the reporter, found the defaulting lawyer in contempt of court. The journalist confirmed this with another reporter present.
The paper published this under ‘Lawyer found in Contempt of Court’. The lawyer objected and the paper apologised. The lawyer equally sued the three pressmen for libel and the Civil Court condemned them to pay €720. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court judgment.
The newspaper sought human rights protection in the constitutional Civil Court, which rejected its defence of faithful reporting. The Constitutional Court, on appeal, agreed with the lower court.
The newspaper then applied to Strasbourg for redress. In 2011, the ECtHR unanimously found that all the Maltese courts had violated the human rights of the pressmen and condemned Malta to pay damages and expenses.
In all four cases, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Maltese constitutional courts had battered the freedoms of the press, to side with the oppressor against the oppressed
A third Strasbourg case again highlighted the human-rights insensitivity of some Maltese courts. John Mizzi wrote in the Times of Malta “after the war, during the administration of Dr Boffa (Labour Prime Minister) permission was given for buildings to be erected on the northern part of the bay because Dr Boffa wanted to build there, and now this has erupted into a conglomeration of high and low-rise constructions of grotesque proportions”.
Sir Paul Boffa’s son, Joseph, sued for damages. The Civil Court found the writing defamatory and condemned the journalist to pay plaintiff €700. The journalist appealed – and lost.
Mizzi instituted human-rights redress proceedings in Malta, only to have his claim dismissed. He then tried the Constitutional Court, which loudly laughed him out.
As a last resort, Mizzi took his complaint to the ECtHR, which, in 2011, by six votes to one (guess who? the ad hoc Maltese judge) found that the four Maltese courts had breached his human rights and condemned Malta to pay him €10,000.
The fourth case referred to libel proceedings started by Michael Falzon, deputy leader of the Labour Party, against Perit Michael Falzon, former Nationalist minister and political commentator, and Saviour Balzan, editor of Malta Today. Dr Falzon felt libelled by Perit Falzon’s allegation about influence exerted on the police by Dr Falzon. Journalist and editor pleaded their right to freedom of expression.
The magistrate found them guilty of defaming the deputy leader of the Labour Party, fining the journalist €2,500 and the editor €1,000, plus costs. Perit Falzon appealed, but the court confirmed the judgment.
Perit Falzon instituted constitutional freedom-of-expression proceedings in Malta. The Civil Court slammed his claims. He then appealed to the Constitutional Court which rejected all his submissions.
Finally, Perit Falzon complained to Strasbourg which, in 2018, unanimously wasted the four local courts and condemned Malta to pay him €12,840 damages and all costs.
A fifth Maltese press case still awaits judgment in Strasbourg. Joseph Calleja was the editor of a satirical opposition newspaper In-Niggieża. It broadly hinted to a Labour minister fathering an extramarital child by an employee.
Superintendent Anthony Mifsud Tommasi charged the editor with criminal defamation and also with outraging public decency. The magistrate found the editor guilty of both charges and, for the first and only time since the war, inflicted a prison sentence for libel – three months jail plus a fine.
The editor appealed through his lawyer, an Opposition MP. Two days before the judgment, the Prime Minister openly threatened the appeal judge in Parliament: “If I catch anyone being swerved because the accused is defended by a member of the opposition, I will fire that judge. I will say it again. I will say it.”
The Criminal Appeal judge, predictably, confirmed the jail sentence, and the editor spent 75 days imprisoned. The newspaper stopped publication.
Calleja, the only journalist in Malta ever to have been imprisoned for libel since the war, instituted constitutional proceedings in Malta to claim compensation. The Civil Court condemned the government to pay him €5,000 damages. The journalist appealed this minuscule compensation for an unlawful 75-day imprisonment. The government also appealed, groaning against such extravagant damages. The Constitutional Court sided with the government, reducing the compensation to €2,000 – and ordering the journalist to pay substantial parts of the costs.
For having had his liberty stolen by the State for 75 days, in crass violation of his human rights, the Constitutional Court punished the journalist. He had to fork out money to the State that had illegally jailed him.
I wonder how all this sits with the Belpietro judgment, about a journalist found guilty of libel and condemned to a suspended term of imprisonment. Jail sentences for libel, even suspended, breach human rights. Strasbourg ordered Italy to pay Belpietro €15,000 in compensation, though he did not spend one single day in jail.
So far, in 30 years of Strasbourg protection against court-endorsed human rights outrages, far too few Maltese pressmen have petitioned the ECtHR – a distressing docility from the victims. Many other Maltese libel judgments would have benefited from a review by Strasbourg.
Casualties too often prefer amnesia.
Giovanni Bonello served as judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for 12 years.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece