University professor wins Lm300 libel damages

Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, has awarded Kenneth Wain Lm300 libel damages.

In a writ filed against Emanuel Cuschieri, Prof. Wain claimed he had been libelled in the course of Mr Cuschieri's radio programme Tajjeb li tkun taf broadcast on Super One Radio on May 22, 2001.

In its judgment, the court pointed out that Prof. Wain was held in high esteem in the field of education and that he felt that the broadcast made by defendant negatively affected his personal and professional reputation and undermined his professional activity.

Prof. Wain had claimed that the broadcast was a personal attack against him and that it was based on facts that were not true.

At the time the broadcast was made Prof. Wain had, in his personal capacity, joined Moviment IVA on the issue of EU membership. The position taken by IVA was in conformity with the ideology of the Nationalist Party and contrasted sharply with the position adopted by the Malta Labour Party which, at the time, opposed EU membership.

It resulted that Evarist Bartolo, within the MLP, had objected to Prof. Wain's involvement with IVA on the grounds that plaintiff occupied the post of chairman of the Foundation for Educational Services.

The broadcast in question was about this objection.

Mr Justice Cuschieri pointed out that Prof. Wain had objected to that part of the broadcast which had stated that no one could trust an individual who put partisan politics and political controversy before the interests of school children.

According to plaintiff, Mr Cuschieri had also stated that parents ought to have their minds at rest that persons paid from public funds put education first. Parents were then told that the major part of the day of persons paid by public funds was being spent on political controversy.

Mr Justice Cuschieri noted that the right to freedom of expression, as exercised by the media, did not imply that the media was immune from prosecution.

The right to freedom of the press had to be safeguarded but the press had always to maintain proportionality between freedom of expression and defamation and the rights of the individual to his good name had to be protected.

The court found that Mr Cuschieri's broadcast clearly identified Prof. Wain and that the broadcast was defamatory in plaintiff's regard.

Furthermore, Mr Cuschieri had not limited himself to an expression of an opinion but had attributed facts to Prof. Wain that did not result to be correct.