Comments by Caruana Galizia were not libellous, appeals court rules

An appeals court has overturned an original judgment given by a Magistrate’s Court, upholding an appeal filed by journalist and blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia who had been originally fined €2,400 after being found guilty by a court of defaming former Azzjoni Nazzjonali Repubblikana spokesman Martin Degorgio, whom she had described as a fascist.

Mr Justice Anthony Ellul ruled that the original judgment given by Magistrate Gabriella Vella was based “on false and irrelevant considerations”.

The appeal referred to two opinion pieces in The Malta Independent on Sunday in 2006. The first was titled ‘Black shirts and blacker hearts’ and was published on 21 May, while the second one, titled ‘Martin and friends make the news,’ was published on 18 June. Mr Degiorgio had sued the columnist for damages over various remarks, including similarities which she had made between him and far-right leader Norman Lowell. The court of appeal ruled that the author’s aim was not to defame Mr Degiorgio but to “investigate and inform the readers on an issue of public interest and of significant importance in the local political scene.”

The court noted that at the time the article was published, immigration was a hot topic in Malta. “It also was a subject of public debate and it came at a time when cars were set ablaze,” it added.

Back in June 2006, Mr Degorgio had also organised a protest against what he defined “illegal immigration.” According to the evidence brought forward, the ANR member was against the presence of immigrants in Malta. In fact, he was quoted saying that immigrants cannot be allowed to leave the detention centres and that “we don’t want a multi-cultural society.”

The court of appeal ruled that the word ‘fascist’ used by Mrs Caruana Galizia was not used “as an insult.” It goes on in explaining that the author chose to explain and define the meaning of fascism to justify her claim.

“Fascism is suspicious of all ‘foreigners’, and minority groups, and regards human rights as dispensable if they do not serve the interests of the nation, or if they are a hindrance to achieving the objectives of the fascist movement”, the blogger wrote.

Following these arguments, the Court of Appeal upheld the journalist’s request and the sentence handed down by the Court of Magistrates was declared null.