Veteran journalist John Mizzi has won a case in the European Court of Human Rights which found that his right to freedom of information was breached when a court in Malta found him guilty of libel over a letter published in The Sunday Times in February 1994.

Mr Mizzi had been found guilty of defaming former Maltese Prime Minister Sir Paul Boffa, who had died more than 30 years earlier.

In the letter, Mr Mizzi commented on the authorities' plans to build a yacht marina in the inner part of St. Paul's bay. In particular, he expressed concern that the neighbouring seaside-village residents had not been consulted about the project. The article also discussed briefly the history behind the project. It suggested, among other things, that after World War II and during the time
when Sir Paul Boffa was a Prime Minister of Malta, permission was given to build on the bay "because Dr Boffa wanted to build there".

As a result of that letter, the son and heir of the late Sir Paul sued Mr Mizzi for
defamation in civil proceedings asking for damages. He argued that the statement that his father had wanted to build in the bay attributed false and despicable intentions to his father.

The Civil Court found that the letter had been defamatory concerning Sir Paul Boffa as it implied that he had taken advantage of his position as head of the civil administration to build in an area for which planning permission had not been granted previously. The court ordered Mr Mizzi to pay €700 in damages to Dr Boffa's son.

The judgment was upheld on appeal.

Further court proceedings brought by Mr Mizzi seeking constitutional redress were concluded by the court dismissing his claim.

Mr Mizzi then took the case to the European Court which examined whether the domestic courts' findings had been "necessary in a democratic society".

The European Court said the Maltese courts had interpreted Mr Mizzi's statement concerning Dr Boffa as meaning that the Prime Minister at the time had wanted to build in the area for himself.

While it was true that Mr Mizzi could have phrased his statement in a more careful manner, that meaning was only one of two possible interpretations of the statement. Even if the interpretation of the domestic courts were accepted, the Court found that the Maltese courts had presumed the malicious intent on the part of Mr Mizzi and had not examined whether he had acted in good fact.

In particular, his statement had to be considered in the light of the overall focus of his letter. The part about Dr Boffa had in fact been a mere historic detail in an article which had dealt with an entirely different subject. It had only been mentioned in passing and held no significance for the point the article had raised.

The tone of the letter, including the part on Sir Paul, had been written in the calmest of tones and could hardly be considered as provocative or exaggerated in the context.

Furthermore, the domestic courts had not given any weight to the fact that Dr Boffa had been a prime minister and, therefore, a public figure who had to tolerate broader limits of acceptable criticism. Neither had the courts considered that the article was devoted to a subject of some public interest.

Finally, while Sir Paul's son had had the right to bring an action for defamation, Sir Paul himself had died more than three decades before the article had been published. Thus the damage which the statement might have caused to his reputation had not been serious. The fact that the proceedings had been civil, as opposed to criminal, and that Mr Mizzi had been sentenced to pay a relatively small fine, had not affected the conclusion that the standards applied by the Maltese courts had not been compatible with those of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 10.

The Court held that Malta was to pay Mr Mizzi €700 in respect of pecuniary damage, €4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €5,300 for costs and expenses.