Judges confirm Lm1,000 libel damages ruling

The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in terms of which Labour MP Gavin Gulia was awarded Lm1,000 libel damages.

In 2000 Dr Gulia filed a writ of summons against David Agius and the Nationalist Party in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Dr Gulia claimed he had been libelled by a press release issued by the PN on June 11 of that year and signed by Mr Agius.

The press release alleged that Opposition Leader Alfred Sant had to investigate whether Dr Gulia ought to resign from his post as principal speaker for the opposition.

According to this press release, Dr Gulia had, while a government minister, obtained a presidential pardon freeing one of his constituents from a prison sentence. Dr Gulia has asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to declare that this press release was libellous in his regard and to condemn defendants to pay him libel damages.

Defendants had filed their pleas after the lapse of the statutory time limit and their pleas were therefore removed from the records of the proceedings.

In its judgment the First Hall of the Civil Court had condemned defendants to pay Dr Gulia a total of Lm1,000 libel damages between them and defendants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J. Magri.

The Court of Appeal proceeded to list the facts resulting from the evidence produced before the first court.

It resulted that a certain Joseph Zahra was the driver of a car that had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in which a woman suffered serious injuries. Mr Zahra had been arraigned before the Magistrates' Court following this accident and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

This judgment was confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal notwithstanding that the prosecution in the appeal stage had agreed that the prison sentence was disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.

Mr Zahra's lawyer of the time had immediately lodged a petition to the President of the Republic requesting a pardon for Mr Zahra.

The lawyer (now Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono) had tried to expedite the granting of the pardon and when he had met Dr Gulia, who at the time was minister responsible for justice, he had mentioned that the petition had been filed.

In his testimony, Mr Justice Galea Debono declared that Dr Gulia had told him that he (Dr Gulia) would have to abide by the advice received from the Attorney General on this point.

The judge told the court that it was only after Mr Zahra had served exactly two months in prison that the pardon was issued.

The Court of Appeal added that it resulted that Dr Gulia had abided by the established policy for the granting of this pardon and that Dr Gulia had not known Mr Zahra and had not spoken to Mr Zahra's relatives.

Defendants had based their appeal on two issues, namely that the press release was comment on facts that were substantially true and that the Nationalist Party could not be the subject of a libel suit in terms of the Press Act.

When dealing with the first ground of appeal the Court of Appeal observed that anyone was entitled to comment on facts provided that these facts were substantially correct.

It was true that in the context of politics or in the context of matters of serious public concern, the margins of criticism were very wide but on the other hand it was also an acknowledged fact that libel could take place in an indirect manner by innuendo.

The Court of Appeal stated that it was not in agreement with the conclusion reached by the first court that the facts in the press release were substantially true.

Mr Zahra had been charged with an involuntary offence, as was the case with a motor vehicle accident, and this was different to an offence of a voluntary nature.

This distinction did not result from the press release.

The appellate court added that the first court had correctly observed that the press release had emphasised the fact that the pardon had been granted to one of Dr Gulia's constituents at a time when Dr Gulia was Justice Minister. This was a clear insinuation that Dr Gulia had abused of his position through political clientelism.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed defendants' second ground of appeal, namely that the PN could not be sued for libel. It was clear that the press release had been issued by the Nationalist Party so that both defendants were the author of the press release. Consequently, the civil libel action could proceed against both defendants.

The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.