A court has thrown out a defamation claim by MediaToday editor Saviour Balzan against former Times of Malta journalist Ivan Camilleri.

The court ruled Camilleri’s Facebook post that Balzan found defamatory was a “reply to an attack” by Balzan, who had run a story claiming Camilleri was involved in a suspected shoplifting incident at a Naxxar supermarket.

The story was run by Malta Today in October 2019, claiming Camilleri had been stopped by security.

On Facebook, Camilleri claimed the story contained false allegations made solely to tarnish his reputation.

Magistrate Rachel Montebello observed that the case clearly unfolded against a background of antagonism between the parties, whether professional, personal or of some other nature.

Camilleri claimed that Balzan had written several stories about him and his family “in a negative tone” and that he felt greatly wronged by the shoplifting story.

Balzan, on the other hand, claimed that the defendant’s Facebook comments were intended to tarnish his reputation.

"Not every false statement is also necessarily defamatory".

In light of the evidence, the court believed that Balzan had filed this libel suit not so much to vindicate any perceived damage to his reputation but rather to prove that he was right and that he had not been mistaken when publishing the supermarket story.

He specifically wanted to put forward evidence to prove that this had not been an isolated incident or an oversight or “mishap”, as Camilleri claimed, but rather one in a series of thefts that had allegedly taken place from Valyou Supermarket over a span of years.

In fact, Balzan had hurriedly pushed forward an urgent request to have CCTV footage from the supermarket preserved “as though that footage was to show that the defendant’s statements were defamatory in his regard.”

“That is wrong… Not every false statement is also necessarily defamatory,” the court said.

This libel suit concerned solely the alleged defamatory Facebook post and Balzan could not use these proceedings to obtain a judicial pronouncement to the effect that Camilleri was wrong in saying that MaltaToday’s story was an invention, a lie and riddled with inaccuracies.

The purpose of a libel suit was to assess whether the defendant’s comments caused serious damage to the applicant’s reputation.

Yet nowhere in his testimony did Balzan explain the damage he was supposed to have suffered, insisting instead that he was not “in it for the pound of flesh” and that his main interests were “the many allegations in his regard and accusations….including…that he had a paid consultancy”.

It was obvious that Balzan himself did not truly believe that his reputation had suffered, the court remarked.

As a public figure with a long career in journalism, Balzan had published serious allegations about Camilleri, “exposing him in public as a thief”.

In such circumstances he was to expect a reaction from Camilleri who, rather than request a right of reply, had rebutted those allegations on his own Facebook page which had far less viewership than Balzan’s own media platform.

Citing UK jurisprudence, the court agreed with the defendant that in such circumstances his post was “a reply to an attack,” which though not envisaged as a plea under the Media and Defamation Act, was equally acceptable in the case at hand.

The European Court of Human Rights also accepted that as a plea.

Camilleri had only replied to the attack, seeking to undermine the credibility of the applicant and explaining that Balzan had an agenda of tarnishing the reputation of “serious persons like him.”

The court was convinced that Camilleri had acted in good faith and observed that Balzan had absolutely failed in proving that the defendant acted maliciously.

Camilleri’s reply was proportionate to the attack, done to defend himself and other family members, particularly his wife, who was also mentioned in a negative context.

When all was considered, the court concluded that the Facebook post was an honest opinion based on a series of articles published by Balzan about Camilleri and his relatives, thus amounting to fair comment.

Balzan’s claim was turned down with costs.

Lawyer Peter Fenech assisted the defendant.