MaltaToday journalist acquitted over 2016 court report

The Court of Appeal has upheld a magistrate’s decision to dismiss a libel case filed against  MaltaToday journalist Matthew Agius, by the son of a man Agius reported about.

The appeals court said the plaintiff had “completely neglected” to anticipate or counter the defence’s argument that the journalist had not accused him of criminal or repugnant actions.

Adrian Muscat sued Agius for libel over a 2016 article titled “Road rage aggressor had threatened to shoot man in 2008.”

Muscat had taken issue with the fact that the article named him and his brother Alan as sons of Marius Muscat, the subject of the article, and had stated that “claims that Muscat’s son had suffered burns in a boat fire, which had been started in an attempt at insurance fraud, remain unconfirmed.”

Lawyer Robert Tufigno, appearing for Muscat, had claimed the article defamed his client.

Lawyers Veronique Dalli and Andrew Saliba, appearing for MaltaToday, said the article was a faithful report of a court judgement and additional information relating to the alleged injuries had been received from confidential sources.

In June 2021, a court of magistrates dismissed the plaintiff’s libel claims, upholding the defence’s argument that the article had not specified which of Muscat’s sons had allegedly suffered burns.

Muscat subsequently filed an appeal, insisting that he was identifiable and that he had faced trouble insuring his possessions as a result of the article.

The journalist’s lawyers rebutted Muscat’s technical claim, saying the law stated that excessive formalism was incompatible with libel cases which should be tried summarily.

They pointed out that both Muscat and his lawyer had failed to appear for the sitting which the court had fixed in order to hear their submissions.

The defence also pointed out that the court was duty bound to raise the issue of identification of the injured party itself, even had the parties failed to do so. Although as a general principle, there was a requirement that the plaintiff in libel cases did not have to be named for the case to stand, “it must be clear in the mind of the ordinary reader that he was the person being referred to.”

The court recognised that the appellant had indeed been involved in an incident where his boat caught fire and had suffered burns as a result.

“The appellant explained how the suspicions of fraud had originated from police sources, as testified by the editor of the same newspaper,” said the judge, noting that the article had not actually accused Muscat of criminal or repugnant actions.

“The Court [of Magistrates] decided correctly,” ruled the Court of Appeal, presided by Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff in his judgement. “In the absence of such a fundamental element required for the success of a libel case, the action of the appellant could never succeed, even if it had not been cited by the defendant.”

Muscat also failed to counter the defence’s argument about him not having been identified in the article, despite being given the opportunity to do so, said the court. “He cannot today, before this court, complain that the decision of the first court led to his suffering prejudice,” said the judge.

In its judgment, the court confirmed the journalist’s acquittal and ordered the appellant to bear the costs of the appeal.