European Court upholds Times' complaint on breach of freedom of expression

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Maltese government to pay Allied Newspapers €8,000 in damages and expenses, for failing to protect their right to freedom of expression.

In the case, The Times complained its rights were breached by a decision of the Constitutional Court that confirmed previous domestic court rulings against the newspaper.

The case, dating back to 1995, concerns a court report written by Sharon Spiteri in which the accused’s lawyer, Dr A., failed to appear, the reason apparently being a dispute over excessive fees.

The atmosphere in the courtroom was chaotic but the reporter believed that the magistrate had found Dr A. in contempt of court. She subsequently tried to verify what she had heard via the proceedings’ records but could not as the magistrate and the court deputy registrar had already left their chambers. She checked with another reporter, also present in the courtroom, who confirmed that he too had understood Dr A. to have been found in contempt of court.

The next day the Times reported that Dr A. had been found guilty of contempt of court for failing to appear at the final hearing of a case in which his client was accused of bigamy. Dr A. immediately contacted Ms Spiteri to protest about the article. She verified the minutes of the proceedings and, noting that no mention was made of Dr A having been found guilty of contempt of court, ensured that her newspaper issued an apology.

Dr A. nonetheless brought civil proceedings against the applicants for defamation. In November 1999 they were found guilty and ordered to pay Lm300 (€720), claiming the article had not been a fair report of the proceedings, even though the prosecutor in the case had testified to having had the same impression as the Times’ reporter. The courts held that this only highlighted all the more the need for her to have verified her information.

In their complaint, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Maltese courts had interfered with the applicants’ freedom of expression. The Court observed that records of proceedings were usually brief minutes which did not contain everything that had taken place in detail, so they could not be considered the sole source of truth for the purposes of court reporting.

“Indeed, all the evidence – apart from the minutes of the hearing – suggested that Dr A. had been found to be in contempt of court. Even the prosecutor himself had corroborated what Ms Spiteri had heard,” the ECHR said.

The Court said it was “struck” by the fact that little or no attention had been paid during the defamation proceedings to this confirmation, made on oath by a prosecutor, and that no explanation was given for this omission.

Moreover, the Court saw no reason to doubt that Spiteri had, in line with best journalistic practice, attempted to verify what had taken place in the courtroom. “She could not reasonably have been expected to do more, given that delaying the publication of news, a perishable commodity, would most likely have deprived it of all value and interest. Also bearing in mind that an apology had been issued, the Court found that Spiteri had at all times acted in good faith.