Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1532462
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 MARCH 2022 OPINION 2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR KURT SANSONE ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 FEBRUARY 2025 A judgment that stands out like a beacon of hope Editorial IN a significant sentence delivered last week, Mr Justice Toni Abela dismissed a request for the en- forcement in Malta of an American court's judg- ment that awarded €660 million in damages. The case concerned a defamation law suit filed in Florida and which the initiator sought to enforce in Malta on the bases that the defendant had ac- quired a Maltese passport. The Maltese judge highlighted several issues that prevented him from taking cognisance of the US court's judgment on the basis that it went against public order. This included the negative impact the amount itself could have on the right to free- dom of expression as exercised in Malta. Abela argued that the amount in damages award- ed by the US court for defamation far exceeded the maximum amount allowed by Maltese law for similar cases. The judge said the "stratospheric" amount was "incompatible" with the manner by which the Maltese State always considered defamation cases. "While the Maltese State always wanted persons guilty of defamation to be liable to pay damages, it did not want such an amount to have a chilling ef- fect, not only on the individual but also on society in general and particularly on the media," Abela noted in his judgment. Additionally, he underscored the fact that when the old Press Act was replaced by the Media and Defamation Act in 2018, the maximum amount in damages a court could award for defamation re- mained unchanged at €11,000. The judge also made reference to the anti-SLAPP legal notice introduced last year, which protects from judgments delivered in foreign courts that are deemed abusive. "The court strongly believes the Maltese State does not permit these amounts in damages for defamation and so this becomes a matter of public order. If this court were to approve the execution of this sentence it would be allowing that which the Maltese State does not want to allow entry through the door to enter through the window and every Maltese citizen could be exposed to [defamation] procedures in the US for any opin- ion expressed online," Abela argued. He went on to stress that as a matter of public order, the Mal- tese State gives higher value to freedom of expres- sion than the financial deterrent associated with defamation. Abela's judgment is important because it con- firms the Maltese courts' long-held tradition of giving significant weight to freedom of expression when deciding on defamation cases. It also cap- tures the essence of what Maltese legislators have held dear until now – ensuring that penalties in libel and defamation cases do not end up creating a chilling effect on everyone else. The judgment also carries significance in today's context when several government exponents, in- cluding Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, are ar- guing for higher penalties in defamation cases, while refusing to extend the anti-SLAPP protec- tion introduced last year to domestic cases. Government exponents use Labour MP Carmelo Abela's case to buttress their arguments in favour of higher defamation penalties. They are also us- ing his case to defend their proposal to stifle the right of ordinary citizens to request magisterial in- quiries even if the two issues are totally unrelated. But what did really happen in the Carmelo Ab- ela case? The MP felt defamed by claims made by Jason Azzopardi that he had been involved in the 2010 HSBC Bank hold-up. Carmelo Abela filed a libel suit and won it. Abela was awarded €7,000 in damages by the court. Is it enough? In its evalua- tion of the facts at hand, the court did not feel it necessary to award the highest possible damages set at law – €11,000. Within this context, using Carmelo Abela's case to justify higher penalty lim- its, or even the reintroduction of criminal libel, is a non sequitur. At a time when the government seems like a run- away train willing to bulldoze over journalists and critics, Mr Justice Abela's judgment stands out like a beacon of hope. We will not hold our breath waiting for anyone in government to even acknowledge or take note of what the judge has argued because Robert Ab- ela's administration is in self-preservation mode. Over the past two years, the Prime Minister has hit out at journalists, accusing them of be- ing part of the 'establishment'; he has accused the Vitals magistrate of 'political terrorism'; tak- en pot-shots at the magistrate in the Jean Paul Sofia inquest; criticised the Ombudsman over his damning report on the prison under former chief Alex Dalli; ignored warnings by the social partners in relation to the proposed reform of magisterial inquiries; and inexplicably inter- vened in ongoing corruption cases being heard in court by publicly declaring that certain indi- viduals are innocent. The Labour government may bank on its contin- ued popularity in the polls but this does not justify its growing arrogance and disdain towards who- ever is critical of its actions. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Quote of the Week "The State of Malta prioritises the right to freedom of expression over excessive financial deterrents… Allowing the enforcement of this ruling would open the door for foreign defamation judgments to be used against Maltese citizens." Judge Toni Abela when refusing the enforcement in Malta of €660 million in defamation damages awarded by a US court. MaltaToday 10 years ago 15 February 2015 Desperate political parties gave up Ordnance Street to get hawkers' votes AN email published by the Labour Party yesterday served as a crude reminder of a last-minute electoral promise made by the former lands minister Jason Azzopar- di, pledging the relocation of the monti hawkers to Ordnance Street by December 1, 2013. The publication of the email appeared to put paid to Opposition leader Simon Busut- til's accusation that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had 'sold his soul for votes' over the hawkers' relocation on Ordnance Street and beneath the new parliament designed by Renzo Piano. The email, dated March 9, 2013 – voting day – copied to then PN secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier at 4:13pm, was published after Busuttil said he would move out Monti hawkers from Ordnance Street. Azzopardi's email, whose content the former minister had already confirmed in an earlier news report back in March 2013, confirms that the Nationalist administra- tion was supporting the monti relocation to Ordnance Street. "I am authorized to inform you that a Na- tionalist government will commit itself to a relocation of the monti from Merchants' Street to Ordnance Street by no later than 1 December 2013," Azzopardi wrote. In the email he clarifies that the re- location will apply to the daily flea market and that the area will not spill over into Republic Street – a factor that alone differs from Labour's original intention to have the hawkers cross over Republic Street. The email published by the Labour Party blanks out the name of the recipients of the email.