Journalists who fail to show “credibility, transparency and integrity” when writing about matters of public interest are effectively betraying the public trust in their profession, a court has concluded.

The court made those observations as it ruled on three libel suits filed by former Times of Malta journalist Ivan Camilleri against MaltaToday and Illum journalists Saviour Balzan, Kurt Sansone and Yendrick Cioffi. 

Camilleri lost two of the three cases and won one. 

Two of the cases concerned an article titled “Times sacks Ivan Camilleri after alleged tip-off to Yorgen Fenech mentioned in court,” published by Malta Today on December 20, 2019, and a Maltese version of the report published by Illum.

Those articles reported that Camilleri had been fired because he had allegedly communicated with murder suspect Yorgen Fenech on the eve of the businessman’s attempted escape from Malta in November 2019. 

Camilleri felt wronged by those articles and sued for libel. He denied having communicated with Fenech, his uncle Ray Fenech or any other member of the businessman’s family to discuss the murder case of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Yorgen Fenech’s alleged involvement as an accomplice. 

The story centred around evidence that had emerged in court during the murder proceedings against Yorgen Fenech when, on December 19, 2019, lead prosecutor Superintendent Keith Arnaud testified at the compilation of evidence. 

That was when the name of “Ivan tat-Times” cropped up. 

Following that court sitting, Times of Malta editor-in-chief Herman Grech had asked then-journalist Ivan Martin whether that reference was to him. Martin had assured him that his last communication with Fenech had taken place in July that year and provided evidence to support his claim. 

Subsequently, Grech testified that he had been told by other sources that it was Camilleri who had allegedly contacted Fenech on the eve of his arrest. 

The court observed that the primary obligation of ethical journalism was to serve the public interest. 

Journalists are expected to operate freely without conflicts of interest or interference from external forces or political, commercial or other interests which could influence a balanced judgment. 

Those forces and interests could also suppress transmission or access to information as well as open debate on matters of public interest. 

A journalist who obtains sensitive and confidential information from sources, possibly his superiors, and uses it to alert a person targeted by police in relation to a murder investigation is doubtlessly betraying the trust placed in him, observed the court. 

Such behaviour shows a lack of integrity and professionalism, in breach of journalistic ethics if not, possibly also, criminal in nature. This is more so when such betrayal takes place within the context of a criminal investigation about the murder of a journalist, the court ruled. 

As a seasoned journalist, with a career spanning many years, such an allegation in Camilleri’s regard could definitely tarnish his reputation. 

However, the court observed further that for the purpose of determining whether the publications were defamatory or not, it was irrelevant whether Camilleri’s dismissal came about as a result of some misunderstanding in relation to Arnaud’s testimony. 

Nor was it relevant whether Grech was wrong in concluding that ‘Ivan’ had leaked sensitive information to the murder suspect. 

The libel suit was not intended to challenge Camilleri’s termination of employment but to determine whether the publications were defamatory and thus damaging his reputation. 

Based on the evidence put forward, the court observed that it was legitimate to link Camilleri’s sacking to the alleged communication between a journalist and Fenech. 

That statement was purely factual and substantially true and correct. 

When read in its entirety, the Illum article said there was evidence indicating communication between ‘Ivan’ and Fenech but not that such communication did take place as a fact. Whether the applicant had actually leaked confidential information to Fenech was “immaterial” for the purpose of the defamation suit. 

All that the article said was that police had found a message on Fenech’s mobile phone saying that a certain “Ivan” had warned him of his looming arrest.

As for the story run by Malta Today, it said that the journalist’s name was not revealed during the court hearing, but was obtained from Malta Today’s sources. 

When testifying in the libel suit, Arnaud confirmed that he had not mentioned ‘Ivan’ when testifying but that it was mentioned in a question put to him by Caruana Galizia family lawyer Jason Azzopardi.

Arnaud explained that he did not know which ‘Ivan’ Fenech was referring to in his text. 

When all was considered, the court dismissed Camilleri claims in both cases, concluding that the publications were not defamatory in his regard.

A third libel concerned an article by Balzan titled 'The bigger picture' published in February 2020.

That article detailed Camilleri’s alleged shoplifting from a Naxxar supermarket and also argued that many of the journalist’s articles were triggered by ulterior motives.

Balzan wrote that “this journalist did not simply follow a story because he had the public interest at heart but because there are other motives at heart.” 

However, the court dismissed Balzan’s arguments, saying he failed to prove that Camilleri had received any monies or bribes to write his stories - something the applicant himself categorically denied when testifying.

Nor did Balzan show what measures he had taken to verify the information he based his article on. 

The court said there was nothing to hint that those articles were meant to benefit some political or commercial interest and it was satisfied that, in general, they served the public interest. 

The tone of the article was “far from factual and objective” and Balzan himself was not so convincing when testifying, trying to justify his article by claiming that it was in the public interest. 

The right to freedom of expression cannot be interpreted in such manner as to protect whoever chose to publish something without first carrying out the necessary verifications and weighing his comments before making them public, said the court, condemning Balzan to pay Camilleri €2,500 in moral damages.