Court reopens Manuel Delia freedom of expression case

The Constitutional Court has overturned a 2023 ruling that blocked blogger Manuel Delia from pursuing a human rights claim over his conviction for defamation against MaltaToday journalist Raphael Vassallo, ordering that the case be sent back to the First Hall for a full hearing.

In a judgment delivered on Monday by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, and Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, the court held that Delia’s claim—alleging that the 2022 defamation judgment breached his fundamental right to freedom of expression—was admissible and must be properly examined on its merits.

The proceedings stem from a 2019 blog post on Delia’s website entitled “Long Read: 416 bis.” In the article, Delia referred to the then-upcoming jury against Vincent Muscat and Alfred and George Degiorgio for the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia as “a mafia trial.”

He criticised the framing of the case and suggested that some journalists had contributed to the perpetuation of a “myth” that the arrest of the triggermen alone resolved the crime. The post included a reference to MaltaToday journalist Raphael Vassallo, stating that “perhaps because he is part of the mafia conspiracy that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia, he perpetrates the myth that arresting and punishing the triggermen resolves the crime.”

Vassallo sued for defamation. The Court of Magistrates dismissed the claim, but in June 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, finding Delia guilty of defamation and ordering him to pay €1,000 in moral damages.

Delia subsequently filed constitutional proceedings in August 2022, arguing that the appellate judgment violated his right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 41 of the Constitution.

In today’s ruling, the Constitutional Court held that constitutional jurisdiction exists to examine whether a final judgment violated fundamental rights and that such review does not constitute a re-hearing of the civil case. The court noted that its function was not to reinterpret evidence or reassess the application of the Media and Defamation Act but to determine whether the interference with Delia’s freedom of expression was proportionate and justified.

The Constitutional Court annulled the 2023 ruling, rejected the preliminary objection raised by the State Advocate, and ordered that the case be remitted to the First Hall of the Civil Court for a full hearing.

No finding was made on whether Delia’s freedom of expression was actually breached, a question which will now be determined by the lower court.