Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/598356
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2015 17 Defamation laws have been up for reform over the past 12 months, as the Cabinet mulls the abolition of criminal libel and the estabishment of a mediation system to give offended parties a faster and more effective system of redress instead of expensive and time-consuming court procedures News 2012 2013 2014 2015 One News, KullHadd, Maltastar.com (In-Nazzjon, Il- Union Print (l-Orizzont, It- Torca, inewsmalta.com Election year 38 56 47 42 49 Reading the graphic Contextually, the ranking of the defendants suggests that independent voices and those in opposition to the government of the day are more likely to be sued. Journalistic carelessness and baseless allegations are also reasons for attracting lawsuits, but those who push the envelope will ultimately fall into the line of fire. MATTHEW VELLA THE Labour administration is mulling over new far-reaching reforms in the field of civil defama- tion, with a new package of laws that will allow injured parties to seek redress through media- tion instead of court action. The proposals have been prepared on the basis of research carried out by independent lawyers and newspaper editors, to offer a suitable alter- native to the expensive and time-consuming defamation proceedings in the Maltese courts. One of the major features of the proposed le- gal reforms will be the introduction of manda- tory mediation for people who file a defamation complaint. Instead of proceeding straight into court to file a civil defamation lawsuit, parties can go straight into mediation to discuss suit- able redress that can be delivered in a timelier fashion. That would save newspapers – often the de- fendants in such cases – as well as plaintiffs, years at the law courts, and thousands spent on expensive legal fees and costly damages. The mediation process however will not mean that parties cannot take the case to the civil court. If mediation fails, a plaintiff can still take recourse to the civil courts. The package of laws will most probably also suggest the prohibition of criminal libel. Most recently, MaltaToday managing editor Saviour Balzan and journalist Matthew Vella were acquitted of criminal libel in a report filed by former PBS head of news Natalino Fenech, claiming his right of reply was not published within the legal time-frames. For the past seven years, MaltaToday had contended that Fenech's criminal libel suit was "simply vexatious", since the former editor's right of reply was published in full in MaltaToday's Wednesday edition. In 2013, with the election campaign in Feb- ruary of that year already dominated by libel suits and criminal defamation proceedings, La- bour leader Joseph Muscat had stated that he was in agreement that criminal libel should be reformed. "Criminal libel is one of the reforms that needs to be discussed. We must see what type of legislation can help the media to do its work, but at the same time make sure that the media is aware of its responsibilities," Muscat said. Opposition leader Simon Busuttil has also joined the ranks of many in calling for the aboli- tion of criminal libel in Malta. "A modern de- mocracy cannot allow for the possibility of be- ing thrown in jail when exercising their right to freedom of expression," he recently declared. Criminal libel is indeed an aberration in any modern democracy, as Magistrate Francesco Depasquale recently pointed out: even if never carried out, the threat of prison in itself consti- tutes a direct affront to freedom of expression. But there are other, less direct threats involved. By filing a criminal libel suit, one actually enlists the office of the prosecution (which, in Malta, falls under the Police Force) to conduct the case at its own expense. This raises the ques- tion of whether it is congruent for the State to foot the bill for a private litigation… a question that assumes greater relevance when one con- siders that libel – both criminal and civil – is very often resorted to as a means of silencing media critics. From this perspective, criminal libel makes the State an accessory to the intimidation of the free press. Cabinet mulls brave new defamation law