The European Court of Human Rights declared today that there was a violation of freedom of expression when The Times (of Malta) was found guilty of defamation by the Maltese courts in a case instituted by a lawyer.

The long-running case was taken to the European Court by former The Times editor Victor Aquilina, printer Austin Bencini and journalist Sharon Spiteri.

The European judges unanimously declaring that the journalist had acted in good faith when reporting on a bigamy case in court.

The case before the courts in Malta had been brought by a lawyer after the newspaper reported that he had been found guilty of contempt of court at the final stages of a bigamy case.

THE CASE

On 20 June 1995, Sharon Spiteri went to a court hearing to report on a bigamy case. The accused's lawyer  failed to appear, the reason apparently being a dispute over excessive fees, the European Court said.  The atmosphere in the court room was chaotic but the reporter believed that the magistrate had found the lawyer in contempt of court. She subsequently tried to verify what she had heard via the proceedings' records but could not as the magistrate and the court deputy registrar had already left their chambers.

She checked however with another reporter, also present in the courtroom, who confirmed that he too had understood  the lawyer to have been found in contempt of court.

The next day The Times reported that the lawyer had been found guilty of contempt of court for failing to appear at the final hearing of a case in which his client was accused of bigamy.

The lawyer immediately contacted Ms Spiteri to protest about the article. She verified the minutes of the proceedings and, noting that no mention was made of him  having been found guilty of contempt of court, ensured that the newspaper issued an apology.

The lawyer, nonetheless brought civil proceedings against the newspaper for defamation.

In November 1999 it was found guilty and ordered to pay Lm300 
(approximately €720). The domestic courts found in particular that it was
clear from the minutes of the hearing that the lawyer had not been found guilty of contempt of court and that the article had not therefore been a fair report of the proceedings.  Even though the prosecutor in the case had testified to having had the same impression as the Times' reporter, the (Maltese) courts held that this only highlighted all the more the need for her to have verified her information.

The Times subsequently brought a constitutional claim which was rejected on appeal in January 2008. The Constitutional Court notably found that, as was to be expected from a professional journalist, Ms Spiteri had had a duty to provide true and verified facts, in good faith, and had she done so, she would have avoided misinforming the public.

The Times took the case to the  European Court of Human Rights on 29 May 2008.

EUROPEAN COURT DECISION

The Court found that the Maltese court judgements had amounted to an interference with the applicants' freedom of expression. That interference had been "prescribed by law", namely the Press Act, and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others.

What was relevant in the applicants' case was whether Ms Spiteri had had the means to verify the facts and whether she had respected her duty of responsible reporting, the European Court said.

On the first point, the Court observed that records of proceedings were usually brief minutes which did not contain everything that had taken place in detail thus, they could not be considered the sole source of truth for the purposes of court reporting. Indeed, all the evidence – apart from the minutes of the hearing - suggested that the lawyer had been found to be in contempt of court. Even the prosecutor himself had corroborated what Ms Spiteri had heard.

"The Court was struck by the fact that little or no attention had been paid during the defamation proceedings to this confirmation, made on oath by a prosecutor, and that no explanation was given for this omission," the European Court said in its report of the case.

Moreover, the Court saw no reason to doubt that Ms Spiteri had, in line with best journalistic practice, attempted to verify what had taken place in the court room.

"She could not reasonably have been expected to do more, given that delaying the publication of news, a perishable commodity, would most likely have deprived it of all value and interest."

Also bearing in mind that an apology had been issued, the Court found that
Ms Spiteri had at all times acted in good faith and in accordance with her duty of responsible reporting.

In consequence, the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation of others and there had therefore been a violation of Article 10.
Article 41 (just satisfaction).

The European Court held that Malta was to pay the applicants, jointly, €4,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage and €4,000 for costs and expenses.  

Drs Austin Bencini and Stefan Frendo were counsel to The Times.