A man who sued three newspapers for libel after they reported that his murdered brother was a known homosexual had the cases thrown out after the Chief Justice ruled that the newspapers had reported facts and were not sensationalist.

Ivan Formosa had appealed a court judgment rejecting suits he had filed against The Times, In-Nazzjon and l-Orizzont about the manner in which his brother's murder was reported.

Mr Formosa had asked the police to take criminal action against the former editor of The Times, Victor Aquilina, and former journalist Sharon Spiteri following an article which described his brother as a known homosexual. He said this was wholly untrue and libellous as it tarnished his brother's reputation.

The police had also been requested to take action against In-Nazzjon and l-Orizzont over articles covering the same news item.

The first court of criminal jurisdiction had concluded that the articles had to be evaluated according to whether an ordinary citizen would deem them as being libellous and not on the basis of Mr Formosa's feelings.

The fact that the articles described the brother as a known homosexual could not be interpreted as tarnishing the man's reputation.

Given the prevailing culture, a person's sexual orientation was not a matter of public interest except in order to ensure that there is no discrimination against such person on grounds of such orientation.

In this day and age, it would not be considered libellous if a person's name is published and that person is described as being homosexual.

Taking into account Police Inspector Chris Pullicino's testimony, where he said that investigations had included the "homosexual factor" and this was what the newspapers had reported, the articles could not be deemed as being libellous, the first court had ruled.

Mr Formosa appealed from all three judgments and the case went before the Court of Criminal Appeal presided over by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano.

On appeal, Mr Formosa claimed that he felt aggrieved by that part of the first court's judgment concluding that the simple fact that a newspaper proclaimed a person to be a homosexual was not in itself libellous. According to Mr Formosa, the court had confused the popular attitude towards homosexuality with the right of a person not to be declared as a "known homosexual".

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that none of the three articles had been written in a sensationalist manner but had reported how the body of Mr Formosa's brother had been found and the line of investigation the police were pursuing.

The Chief Justice said that the first court had not been completely correct in its generic assertion that classifying an individual as a homosexual was not libellous. A distinction had to be made between homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts and everything depended upon the particular circumstances of each case.

The three cases before the court involved a form of investigative journalism following the police inquiry into a murder. There was a strong public interest in the case, for murder was always a serious crime. It was therefore legitimate for the newspapers to pass on their knowledge to the public after making the necessary verifications.

Truly investigative and responsible journalism about a matter of public interest had to be given more latitude in publication than other matters.

The court found that The Times article was responsible and had not exceeded the limits of responsible journalism. The police had declared that they were investigating the homosexual aspect of the case and Mr Formosa himself had testified that his brother's wife had told him that she was leaving her husband because he was a homosexual.

In conclusion, the Chief Justice found that none of the three articles had been libellous and dismissed Mr Formosa's appeals.