A Sunday Times of Malta article which revealed that a nurse and a salesman were tricking elderly patients out of money was in the public interest and not libellous, a court ruled this week.

In its judgment, the First Hall of the Civil Court awarded former news editor Ariadne Massa and former editor Steve Mallia €2,000 each after it found that libel judgements against them violated their freedom of expression.

The article, published in 2010, reported that the nurse and salesman were charging elderly patients €100 for tests which were available free-of-charge at public hospitals.

Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima found that the two were right to publish the article before receiving comment from the nurse involved, as this was a case which had to be dealt with urgently.

READ: Editor, reporter have their bank accounts frozen

Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima also noted that Ms Massa's description of the nurse as being "employed in a managerial position at Mater Dei Hospital and occupies a top post within the structures of the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses” was a value judgment made by the paper and could not be considered an attack on the MUMN committee.

Mr Mallia and Ms Massa welcomed the judgment but said that its timing came with a "cruel sense of irony."

They noted that it had taken them seven years to be vindicated in court, and that in the meantime they had had their bank accounts frozen following a court's garnishee order.

READ: The 2010 article which claimed elderly patients were being scammed

"It remains all too easy for vindictive court cases to be instituted for publishing investigative stories that are in the public interest, and it takes far too long (in this case seven years) for well-intentioned journalists to earn vindication," they said.

It remains all too easy for vindictive court cases to be instituted for publishing investigative stories that are in the public interest

The case began in 2010 when the MUMN committee filed a libel case against Mr Mallia and Ms Massa following the publication of an article written by Ms Massa and published on August 22, 2010, called ‘Patients swindled in scam – Top MUMN official investigated’.

A magistrate's court had found in the MUMN's favour and ordered Ms Massa to pay €10,000 and Mr Mallia to pay €1,500 in damages to committee members.

Ms Massa and Mr Mallia appealed, but in January 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed their case and reduced damages to €4,000. The MUMN committee issued garnishee orders against Ms Massa and Mr Mallia to obtain payment, effectively freezing their bank accounts.

Following the Court of Appeal decision, Ms Massa and Mr Mallia filed a constitutional action against the Attorney General claiming that their right to freedom of expression had been violated.

Ms Massa told the court that in 2010 she had received information that a nurse and a salesman were deceiving elderly patients and charging them money for tests that were available free of charge at local hospitals. She had been careful not to identify the nurse and had described him as being “employed in a managerial position at Mater Dei Hospital and occupies a top post within the structures of the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses”.

She had taken this position because the nurse was the chairman of the Mater Dei Group Committee and therefore an important person in the MUMN.

Ms Massa added the newspaper had tried to obtain a comment from the nurse but failed, and this was the reason he had not been identified in the story. Furthermore, the nurse’s name was the same as a surgeon working at Mater Dei, and this was another reason why his name had been withheld.

The court heard that the newspaper had decided to proceed with publication because it held that this was a story of public interest, as it concerned a case of patients being urged to pay €100 for therapy.

In this week's judgment Madam Justice Padovani Grima said freedom of expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. 

Quoting judgments of the European Court of Human Rights she said freedom of expression was applicable not only to information favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also that offensive or shocking to the State or any group.

The press, said the court, had the task of imparting matters of public interest, and the public had a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of public watchdog.

The judge added that, according to the European Court, if a restriction on the right of freedom of expression was to be deemed justifiable, it had to result from law, be legitimate and be necessary in a democratic society.

There was no doubt the libel proceedings filed against Mr Mallia and Ms Massa resulted from the country’s law, nor was there any doubt that the proceedings had been filed to protect the reputation of the committee members. Therefore the restriction had a legitimate purpose. However, the court found that the libel proceedings had not been necessary in a democratic society.

The article had been in the public interest, as it dealt with alleged fraud. The public was not only interested in hearing of such cases but was entitled to. That the article was of public interest was clear from the Health Minister immediately ordering an investigation.

Madam Justice Padovani Grima added that the newspaper had been right to proceed to publish the article before receiving comment from the nurse involved, as this was a case which had to be dealt with urgently.

The court concluded that the article could not be considered an attack on the committee members (none of whom were named therein), and that the use of the phrase “top official” when describing the nurse was a value judgement made by the newspaper.

Were the article to be considered libellous in respect of the committee members, then this would have a chilling effect on local journalism, for journalists would hesitate to publish investigative articles out of fear of libel damages in favour of persons they had not named nor identified.

The court found in favour of Ms Massa and Mr Mallia and awarded them €2,000 each in compensation.

Statement from Steve Mallia and Ariadne Massa

“This judgment in favour of freedom of expression should be a cause for celebration – but in the midst of the dark cloud hanging over all of us following the barbaric murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, it is tempered with a cruel sense of irony.

“Yet the case we were forced to take to the Constitutional Court – though paling into insignificance with what happened last week – highlights the problems journalists in this country face on a daily basis.

It remains all too easy for vindictive court cases to be instituted

“It remains all too easy for vindictive court cases to be instituted for publishing investigative stories that are in the public interest, and it takes far too long (in this case seven years) for well-intentioned journalists to earn vindication.

“In the meantime, they can be subjected to unfair criticism, as we were, and financial pressures, as we were, since our personal bank accounts were frozen, merely on the whim of the plaintiffs.

“This is not a satisfactory climate within which a free press can operate – particularly in this day and age, when severe constraints on the media mean resources are stretched to the limit.

“We can only hope with more judgments of this nature – and relentless pressure to change laws and attitudes – the situation will change. If people truly value freedom of expression, it has to.”