Constitutional Court dismisses Bedingfield appeal

A constitutional appeal filed by journalist Glenn Bedingfield from a judgment of the Civil Court was yesterday described as trivial by the Constitutional Court which dismissed it.

The appeal was filed from a judgment in a constitutional application Bedingfield filed in October 1999 in which he had contested the criminal libel proceedings filed against him following the publication of his book Il-Gurament.

He claimed the book was on a matter of public interest and concerned the proper administration of justice in the country.

The book also considered the limits of executive and judicial power, and examined the attempted murder of the prime minister's personal assistant.

The prime minister had then taken criminal proceedings for libel against Bedingfield following the publication.

Bedingfield had requested the Civil Court to declare that that part of the Press Act dealing with criminal proceedings was in violation of his fundamental human right to freedom of expression.

The application was filed against the police commissioner, the attorney general and the prime minister.

The first court had dismissed Bedingfield's application, and he had then appealed to the Constitutional Court.

In a judgment of July 31, 2000, the Constitutional Court had remitted the case back to the Civil Court, and had ordered that Dr Fenech Adami be called into the suit.

Dr Fenech Adami was called into the suit in his personal capacity by a decree of the Civil Court of August 2000.

In its judgment of September 10, 2001 the Civil Court had dismissed Bedingfield's constitutional application with costs against him.

Bedingfield appealed from this judgment on September 20, 2001. He claimed that the judge who had originally decided his case ought not to have continued to hear the case himself after the first judgment of the Constitutional Court.

He added that the Civil Court had not acted to prevent a violation of his fundamental human rights.

Furthermore, applicant claimed that jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights had established that politicians were to expect greater attack as a result of their actions.

The European Court had also declared that the sanction of imprisonment was a threat to freedom, and was not required in a democratic society.

The Constitutional Court yesterday declared that it had no hesitation in finding the appeal trivial.

Bedingfield had never challenged the judge presiding over his case in first instance to abstain from hearing the case in a formal manner, save that he had made a vague reference to the possibility of abstention.

Furthermore, Bedingfield and his lawyer had failed to attend the subsequent court sittings, save for one, and the case was then put off for judgment.

The Constitutional Court added that it was correct that the courts could take action to prevent any violation of human rights, but this did not mean that the courts could examine matters in the abstract or in the event of a hypothesis that a particular contingency would arise.

All that Bedingfield was expecting was a judicial declaration to the effect that as he was a journalist who had written a book on matters of public interest, no criminal proceedings for defamation could be filed against him.

This was clearly not the case, and all that had resulted to the Civil Court was that Dr Fenech Adami's criminal action against Bedingfield had not violated the latter's right to publishing.

The Constitutional Court declared that it was in full agreement with this judgment.

When referring to Bedingfield's submission that jurisprudence of the European Court was in his favour, the Constitutional Court declared that appellant had failed to produce any such case law for the benefit of the court.

While it was true that politicians were exposed to harsher criticism than other persons, this did not mean that politicians were not entitled to protect their reputation through the criminal law.

The court therefore dismissed Bedingfield's appeal with costs.