Appeal over compensation given to editor imprisoned in 1973 drawing to a close

An appeal filed before the Constitutional court by the only Maltese editor to have been slapped with a three-month prison term over an article published in 1973 is drawing to a close. The Superior Court of Appeal is to decide whether the €5,000 awarded to Joseph Calleja in compensation for being imprisoned over this article, breaching his right to freedom of expression, is too low.

In conjunction, the Attorney General also filed an appeal over the compensatory sum, arguing that he should not have been awarded any compensation in the first place. The courts are tasked with deciding on both appeals, and are expected to take a decision soon.

The case dates back to 1973 where Mr Calleja was the editor of a Maltese language newspaper “In-Niggieza,” and penned an article in which he alleged that the employment minister at the time, Joseph Cassar, had had an extramarital affair with a worker from within his Ministry, and had also impregnated her.

The story turned out to be false and Mr Calleja was imprisoned for three months and fined Lm50.

The editor excused himself and offered the Minister a right of reply on the newspaper. Despite the acts of remedy, Mr Calleja’s judgment was confirmed before a Criminal Court of Appeal.

Some 40 years later, Mr Calleja filed a Constitutional case where he argued that the prison term handed was in breach of his fundamental right to freedom of expression. Last October, the courts sided in favour of the former editor, and awarded him €5,000 in compensation. The Attorney General and Mr Calleja both appealed the decision.

During the appeal hearings, lawyer Christian Falzon Scerri, representing the office of the Attorney General, said that his office does not agree that Mr Calleja did not act with bad intentions at the time of the article, which was made clear when the original Criminal Court made a distinction by fining the publisher of the paper just Lm10, while giving Mr Calleja a much harsher penalty.

He argued that freedom of expression under the Constitution of Malta is not absolute, and there are exceptions in order for the protection of reputation of the individual in question. He argued that the compensation awarded to Mr Calleja sends out the wrong message, that anybody can write anything on a whim.

Lawyer John Bonello, representing Mr Calleja, said that the guilty verdict was not in question but rather whether a prison term is suitable with regard to libel cases.

Dr Bonello said that the judgment was a perfect example of the principle known as the “chilling effect”, resulting in other journalists holding back from publishing stories that are of public interest.

The Constitutional Court hearing the Appeal is presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, together with Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri.

Freedom of expression under the Constitution of Malta is not absolute, and there are exceptions in order for the protection of reputation of the individual in question.