Grima fined €5,000 over Facebook post on RCC

Former Labour minister now UNWTO envoy for government, fined €5,000 for claiming on Facebook that Richard Cachia Caruana’s ‘villa in Valletta’ was on sale for €5 million

Joe Grima - two defamatory Facebook posts have cost him €5,000
Joe Grima - two defamatory Facebook posts have cost him €5,000

The former Labour minister Joe Grima has been fined €5,000 over Facebook status updates he posted which were found to be defamatory in the regard of Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta’s former permanent representative to the EU.

The posts, dated 29 and 30 August 2012, were said to contain false and defamatory allegations about Cachia Caruana, at the time having just resigned in a parliamentary vote of no confidence.

In the posts, Grima had alleged that Cachia Caruana’s residence was on sale for €5 million; denigrated him by calling him ‘Rich il Puff’; and that he was the recipient of a “phenomenal salary” and thousands of euros for “a stabbing by a Nationalist”.

On his part, Grima told the court that his posts were “fair comment” in respect of Cachia Caruana being a public person who belonged to political life and exposed to such criticism. But after a year of not appearing for the case, Grima finally declared to the court that he had no evidence to present in his defence.

On his part, Cachia Caruana told the court that his Mdina residence was not on sale, as alleged by Grima when he posted a link to another villa on sale in a realtor’s property magazine.

In his decision, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale said that Grima had not disassociated himself from further comments made on his Facebook post by third parties, against Cachia Caruana’s reputation.

Citing Gatley, considered to be ‘the bible’ of defamation law, Depasquale said that fair comment had to be proven to be comment, and not a statement of fact, and that there must be a basis of fact for the comment. “He must show that the comment is on a matter of public interest, one which has expressly or implicitly put before the public for judgment or is otherwise a matter with which the public has a legitimate concern.”