The courts today dismissed a criminal libel case instituted by the Ramblers Association against the editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday David Lindsay after the Association decided to call in the police over issues related to a right of reply it had sent the newspaper.

The Ramblers had initiated criminal proceedings against Mr Lindsay over the delayed publication of a right of reply.  While the Press Act stipulates that such a right of reply needs to be published within two issues, the reply had eventually been published three months later.

The delay in publication was on account of potentially libellous comments in the right of reply itself, and legal advice had been sought before a decision had eventually been taken to publish the Rambler’s letter.

Over the course of court proceedings, it transpired that the Association was not even aware that their reply had, in fact, been published.  And when this had been pointed out by the courts, the Association nevertheless requested the police to press on with the case because it had not been published within two issues, even though it had been explained that the newspaper had needed to seek legal advice over its potentially libellous contents.

The letter’s subject matter dealt with the Ramblers’ objections to not being allowed access to private property in the Simblija area of Rabat and followed the publication of an article titled: ‘Whistleblower claims discriminatory and selective campaign linked to Ian Borg’, published on 24 July 2016.  The article which was based on an interview with Noel Ciantar, a man from a family of farmers who had cultivated the agricultural property for generations. Mr Ciantar had claimed that a campaign by the Ramblers' Association was attacking his family's legal rights over the property by demanding that he gives public access to the area and that “this was instigated by Dr Ian Borg when he was Mayor of Dingli.”

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale noted that the article also addressed allegations that Mr Ciantar had made against Dr Borg and that the Association had been requesting access to his private property when the same was not being asked of other private property in which Dr Borg's relatives have a commercial interest.

The court considered that the newspaper's editor, David Lindsay, had explained that the cause of the delay in publishing the Ramblers’ reply was the fact that he felt it contained statements that could be defamatory and had sought legal advice before publishing it. The court, after reading the letter, agreed that the comments it contained could be considered as defamatory.

The right to not publish potentially defamatory Rights of Reply is protected under the Press Act.

In his judgment dismissing the case, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale pointed out that the right of a person to reply to attacks on their reputation did not extend to permit the person to make defamatory allegations against third parties. Doing so “is nothing other than an abuse of the right,” ruled the court.

Noting that the case had been filed two months after the Association’s reply had actually been published, the court found for defendant David Lindsay and ordered the plaintiff Association to bear the legal costs of the case.