The Talcum Powder Plot

Where we delve into one of the legal issues surrounding Plategate. Lawyers and the law were never meant to be interesting but make no mistake – the upholding and application of the same set of rules to everybody is an important foundation of our society. La legge é uguale per tutti. Bear with us. It’s a long one.

A few weeks ago we criticised Lou Bondi for not delving further behind the subject of Plategate. Lou’s allegiances were made somewhat clearer last Sunday when he stood behind the woman with the handbag (which we find to be oh so ironic). J’accuse has not had time to deal with the guerilla tactic farce of journalistic cameras thrown into your face. We wouldn’t so much “condemn” Charlon Gouder’s puerile camera tactics (and whinging follow up) as pour tons of scorn upon yet another manifestation of the puerile irrelevance of the local “partisan”  journalistic scene when it comes to investigation.

A journalist Charlon is not. Those cameras were not searching for news but for sensation and political clip. There is no reasonable explanation for a prying camera and microphone on a private conversation other than the intention to deliberately provoke. It’s not even worth discussing in the context of media ethics unless of course you subscribe to the voyeurist ethic that seems to be all pervading.

What we are more interested in is the evolution of the Plategate saga – in particular the accusations totalling to gross misconduct directed from the Runs platform to a member of the judiciary in her private capacity (with repercussions on her public persona if proven). For a woman who displays a profound dislike of anything legal and lawyerish while at the same time aspiring for a University of the Road Honoris Causa in dabbling in the law, Daphne Caruana Galizia has displayed an interesting capacity of tip-toeing the legal line.

The erstwhile columnist has “sacrificed” the Runs popularity in order to transform it into a paparazzo/investigative column to all things Herrera. For over a month it has become practically the only subject to be discussed on the blog in question (note to the Times – it’s a  blog). Before the usual spate of libel and slander actions that is as common in Malta as fireworks in August began, the Runs concentrated on ensuring that the excrement was hitting the rotors of the cooling machine by spreading aforementioned excrement as widely as possible. In order to show what we mean we will focus on the mention, early in the posts, of the presence of “talcum powder” in parties hosted by the subject of the blogs.

Any reasonable person reading the post that day would have understood the implication of “talcum powder” – it’s not so slang for a kind of drug that comes in the same form, shape and colour as the assuaging substance that is literally mentioned. This allegation was, at least in my books, a heavy allegation – very very dangerous for a person in the position of a magistrate — so like anyone else I was hooked to the site waiting for more details to surface that could substantiate this allegation. It was without any doubt one of the salient points that led to the blog being read, re-read and re-read ad nauseam.

Fast forward to when the lawsuits started to fly and what do we get? A semi-retraction. Daphne does not stand by what she clearly implied by innuendo to anyone having half a brain and living in this world. Nope. She claims first that “talcum powder” could be purchased from any pharmacy and even adds a softening “or deodorant” to the business. J’accuse is not privvy to information whether it was simply a case of the jitters (highly improbable) or a case of there never having been substantial proof in the first place (more likely-  though as I said, I cannot say for certain). What we do note is that by the time the matter is raised in court Daphne implies that if the Magistrate understood talcum powder to be a drug then that is her problem.

Now here is the point we would like to make today. We admire anyone who will take up the gauntlet to face a rotten system and expose the naked emperor. We will not only admire but we will back that person to the hilt. The problem here is that such crusades are against a settled system and must be airtight. We have no doubt that the allegations are serious enough to be investigated and followed through. What is worrying is that this kind of “retraction” gives the wrong impression that it was used simply to attract attention to the case. The truth is not ours to know because we were neither present at the parties in question nor in possession of any information Daphne might eventually come up with (actually that should be now, not eventually).

In any event we have had situations before where allegations based on an infamous “moral conviction” led to action for libel. A landmark case in this regard is that of the 23rd May 2002 (introduced in 1997) between Dr Louis Galea (then a member of opposition) and Prime Minister Alfred Sant. Those blessed with a good memory will remember that during a speech (on 24.07.96 – reported in Super 1, l-Orizzont, and the Times) PM Sant had alleged that drugs were being imported into Malta by Ministerial delegations. In that same speech, Dr Sant had invited Dr Louis Galea to categorically state that he had never been on a Ministerial Delegation outside Malta with someone who imported or could have imported drugs”.

Dr Louis Galea sued for libel. The judgement by Hon. Justice Ray Pace makes an excellent reading of the applicable principles at law – including what constitutes a “fair comment”, the exposure of public persons to such comment, the limits of the freedom of expression and the criteria for assessing what is an “innuendo” and what was really meant in certain allegations.

You will find in the following section the court’s summary of the salient principles applicable in such circumstances. It is important to stress that this case dealt with libel under the Press Act (Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta). The aim of J’accuse here is to make it clearer to the reader and follower of the current saga – from a jurisprudential point of view – as to what are the principles and guidelines both from a legal and (consequentially) and ethical point of view.

The informed reader is, we like to think, a more intelligent and discerning reader. Anything else hides behind handbags.

THE APPENDIX

Selections taken from the judgement of the First Hall Civil Court of the 23rd May 2002, Hon Dr Louis Galea vs Hon Prime Minister Alfred Sant. (any errors in reproduction – cut and paste from a pdf document – are my own). All underlining is my own.

Illi fost il-principji illum stabbiliti jinghad illi l-iktar wiehed mill-importanti huwa il-bilanc li jrid jinzamm bejn “il-bzonn li is-socjeta` demokratika jithalla spazju sufficjenti ghall liberta` li wiehed jikkritika u li jsemmi l-opinjoni u l-gudizzju tieghu, mal-bzonn l-iehor, xejn anqas mehtieg, tad-difiza tar-reputazzjoni, l-unur, l-isem tajjeb, li kull persuna f’socjeta` demokratika ghandu kull dritt li jgawdi” (“Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et.” – A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru 1994. – LXXVIII.II.I.372.).

“Il-linja medjana fejn proprio id-dritt ta’ espressjoni libera taccedi dak ragonevoli u ghandha tigi punita, ghax issir minflok ksur tad-drittijiet ta’ haddiehor; huwa proprio … … fejn l-espressjoni tigi bbazata fuq fatti skorretti”. “Onor. Charles Buhagiar vs Ray Bugeja” (P.A. N.A. 19 ta’ Jannar 1996).

Illi ghalhekk ma tistax tirnexxi l-eccezzjoni tal-‘fair comment’, “jekk ma jigux ippruvati sodisfacentament, il-fatti addebitati lill-kwerelant, u ma tistax tirnexxi id-difiza tal- ‘justification’ u jekk il-fatti ma jkunux veri, lanqas jista’ jkun hemm ‘fair comment’ (“Anglu Camilleri vs Anthony Zammit” Vol.XI.IV.1195; “Dr. Joseph M. Ciappara vs Joseph Zammit” JSP. Citazz. Nru. 929/90/JSP – 3 ta’ Ottubru 1991).

Illi sabiex isir dan l-ezami wiehed irid jiehu l-kliem fis-sens normali w ordinarju taghhom, u dan ifisser “in the meaning which reasonable or ordinary men of ordinary intelligence, with the ordinary man’s general knowledge and experience of world affairs, would be likely to understand them”, dan jista’ jinkludi “any implication or inference which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction would draw from the word”.(“Jones vs Skelton” (1963) W.L.R. pg. 1371 (P.C.)).

Illi fil-fatt ricentement inghad ukoll li anke jekk l-allegazzjoni ma tkunx giet espressament miktuba, izda mill-assjem tal-artikolu johrog car x’ikun qed jigi manifestament implikat, hemm kawza ta’ libell, jekk tali allegazzjonijiet ma jigux ippruvati. (“Onor. Seg. Parlamentari Dr. Joseph Fenech vs Evarist Bartolo nomine” – A.C. (JSP) 8 ta’ Gunju 1999).

Illi dan jista’ jsir ukoll pero` permezz ta’ “innuendo” li fil kawza “G. Strickland vs Goffredo Chretien” (A.C. 12 ta’ Frar 1937, XXIX.I.859) giet imfissra hekk:-“Il-kelma ‘innuendo’ tfisser is-sens li l-persuna ingurjata tirrevoka mill-kitba nkriminata u li hija trid li tigi milqugh mill-gudikant”.

Illi fil-kawza “Il-Pulizija vs Joseph Olivieru Munroe”
(XXXIII.IV.824.) inghad illi:-

“F’materja ta’ ingurja permezz ta’ l-istampa l-ingurja tista’ tirrizulta permezz ta’ ‘innuendo’. L-‘innuendo’ jista’ jkun ta’ zewg xorta jigifieri:

(a) dak li permezz tieghu tigi identifikata l-persuna li ma tkunx issemmiet b’isimha, u

(b) dak li permezz tieghu jigi stabbilit is-sens tal-kliem ritenut ingurjuz mill-persuna li tippretendi li giet ingurjata”.

Illi inoltre sabiex wiehed jasal biex jaghmel dan l-ezami jekk artikolu huwiex libelluz jew le wiehed “ghandu jhares mhux biss il-bran denunzjat, imma l-artikolu kollu kemm hu li jikkontjeni tali bran. U f’din il-materja hu elementari li wiehed jikkonsidra mhux dak li seta’ talvolta kellu f’rasu min kiteb l-artikolu, imma dak li fil-fatt kiteb, ghaliex dak li jaqra il-qarrej” (“Domenic Mintoff vs Thomas Hedley et.” – P.A. (W.H.) 28 ta’ Novembru 1953).

Illi fil-kawza “Mons. Anton Gauci vs Michael Schiavone et” (A.C. 8 ta’ Novembru 1995) intqal illi meta l-ingurja hija diretta kontra persuna fizika, “il-margini ta’ tolleranza twessa’, u mhux kull kumment qawwi u anki azzardat jikkwalifika bhala ngurja”, “dan li l-Qorti ghandha tippermetti l-attitudini fil-kritika li tista’ tkun mhux biss iebsa izda wkoll azzardata entro l-limiti accettati tad-dicenza permessibbli f’socjeta’ demokratika”, u tali regoli ghandhom jigu applikati b’iktar wiesgha f’kazijiet li lejha hija ndirizzata tali kritika tkun ta’ certa notorjeta` pubblika, il-kritika tkun ta’ interess pubbliku, u fejn il-kritika tkun ibbazata fuq u mibnija madwar fatti li jkunu sostanzjalment veri.”

Illi ghal dak li jittratta dwar persuni pubblici tajjeb ukoll li wiehed izomm quddiem ghajnejh li fil-kuntest ta’ kritika tal-istess persuni u politici u ta’ l-operat taghhom, kienet u ghadha permessa l-attitudini wiesgha ta’ fehmiet u opinjonijiet horox anke jekk mhux misthoqqa, u kultant ingusti. Dik il-giurisprudenza giet elaborata f’diversi gjudikati f’dawn l-ahhar snin, fosthom is-sentenza fil-kawza fl-ismijiet “Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et”, (A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru, 1994, (Vol. LXXVIII. ii.372)).

Illi pero’ fl-istess sentenza (“Vincent Borg vs Victor Camilleri et”, (A.C. 15 ta’ Novembru, 1994, (Vol. LXXVIII. ii.372)) inghad li l-Qorti kienet “tissottoskrivi l-hsieb li r-restrizzjonijiet li taghmel il-ligi ta’ l-istampa (Kap 248) ghandhom jigu nterpretati fid-dawl ta’ l-artikolu 41 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta, kif ukoll fl-isfond ta’ l-artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, kif dan jigi nterpretat fil-gjurisprudenza tal-Qorti Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet Umani. “Dan l-izvilupp fis-sistema legali taghna huwa zvilupp sinifikanti hafna ghal pajjizna billi ma jistax ma jkollux l-effett li jwessa’ d-dritt ta’ l-espressjoni. Madankollu f’dan l-izvilupp essenzjali l-istampa ma nghatat ebda passaport ta’ immunita’ billi tibqa’ dejjem il-htiega li jinzamm sens ta’ proporzjon bejn il-liberta’ ta’ l-espressjoni u c-censura tal-malafama. Dejjem jehtieg li jinzamm bilanc bejn il-bzonn lif’socjeta’ demokratika jithalla spazju sufficjenti ghall-liberta’ li wiehed jikkritika u li jsemmi l-opinjoni u l-gudizzju tieghu, ma’ l-bzonn l-iehor, xejn anqas mehtieg, tad-difiza ta’ reputazzjoni, unur u l-isem tajjeb li kull persuna f’socjeta’ demokratika ghandha kull dritt li tgawdi”.

Illi wiehed irid f’dan il-kuntest ihares lejn il-gurisprudenza tal-Qorti Ewropeja kif qed tizviluppa wara s-sentenza awtorevoli u immorattiva fil-kaz “Lingens” u fil-kaz iehor “Oberschlick” fejn il-Qorti Ewropeja rriteniet li ma kienetx mehtiega f’socjeta’ demokratika, ligi li tirrikjedi l-prova talverita’ ta’ opinjonijiet rigward figuri politici. Kuncett dan zviluppat fis-sentenza fil-kawza “Thorgierson vs Iceland”, (1992) li bih l-applikant kien gie misjub hati ta’ malafama tal-Pulizija f’diversi artikoli kritici hafna tal-komportament u dixxiplina taghhom.

Illi fil-kawza “Schwabe vs. Austria” (1992) il-Kummissjoni Ewropeja rriteniet illi “Politicians must be prepared to accept criticism even if far fetched but that such criticism must be founded on correct factual statements. It somewhat mitigated what correctness required when it said “In a short contribution to a discussion and the behaviour of  politicians and the political morals not every word can be weighed to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding. The Court conflated the facts and opinion of Schwabe’s article – they amounted to a value judgment for which no proof of truth is possible”. (Harris, Boyle, Warbrick, Law of the European Convention of Human Rights, p.397 et seq). (J’accuse Note: In this ECHR case, Schwabe had been convicted for defamation for having referred to a politician’s criminal record. The Court concluded that this was within the remit of a value judgement of public morality and within the rights of the journalist – going so far as awarding non-pecuniary damages to the journalist in compensation for his earlier conviction of defamation).

“Il-kritika hi fondamentali f’socjeta’ demokratika, pero’ dejjem hemm il-limiti. Dawn il-limiti f’kazijiet bhal dan li jkunu ta’ interess pubbliku generali, ghandhom ikunu wesghin kemm jista’ jkun, b’mod partikolari meta hemm involuti persuni pubblici bhal ma huwa l-attur. F’dan irrigward il-Gately (op.cit.) jghid- In cases of comment on a matter of public interest the limits of comment are very wide indeed. This is especially so in the case of public men. Il-Gately jispecifika inoltre illi – Unless there is some clear evidence of malice or some mistatement of fact, no action should be commenced, however severe the terms of the criticism may be. Ghar-rigward ta’ x’jikkostitwixxi  misstatement of fact l-istess Gately ighid- It is one thing to comment upon or criticise, even with severity, the acknowledged or proved acts of a public man, and quite another to assert that he has been guilty of particular acts of misconduct”;

“Il-Qrati taghna segwew dawn l-insenjamenti u jista’ jinghad li fid-dawl tal-gurisprudenza ricenti d-dritt ta’ l-espressjoni permezz ta’ l-istampa ghandu jinghata nterpretazzjoni wiesgha, b’tali mod li, skond ic-cirkostanzi partikolari tal-kaz, kritika harxa u azzardata tista’ tigi wkoll permessa dejjem sakemm din tkun entro l-limiti ta’ dak li hu ragonevoli. (Vide Appelli Civili, “Fenech vs Callus et” – 4 ta’ Frar, 1994; “Sant vs Camilleri et” – 14 ta’ Frar, 1994; u “Mons A Gauci vs M. Schiavone et” – 8 ta’ Novembru, 1995).

Illi ghalhekk f’kazijiet li jkunu ggeneraw interess kbir fil-pubbliku u fejn ikunu nvoluti persuni pubblici l-limiti tal-kummenti huma wiesghin pero’ hemm dejjem limiti. Tali limiti huma dettati fuq kollox minn dak li hu ragjonevoli, minn dak li hu dicenti u minn dak li jista’ jkun accettat fis-socjeta’ in partikolari. Hemm ukoll id-dritt li kull persuna, pubblika o meno, li tigi tutelata kemm fil-persuna taghha kif ukoll fil-fama taghha. Implikazzjonijiet, minghajr fondament, maghmula ghal kwalunkwe raguni, anke possibilment ghal raguni politika, … …,ma jistghu qatt jigu accettati la fil kuntest ta’ fatti li qajjmu interess pubbliku u lanqas fejn
hemm involuti nies pubblici;”

Illi dan kollu gie ribadit mill-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ l-Appell Civili fil-kawza “Eddie Fenech Adami et vs. Joseph Vella et” deciza fl-1 ta’ Frar, 1998 meta gie ritenut: “Il-ligi taghna mhix njara tal-kuncett ta’ nteress pubbliku u l-fatt li persuni f’karigi pubblici w importanti necessarjament huma esposti ghal kritika. Infatti tammetti l-prova tal-verita’ tal-fatti f’diversi kazijiet ta’ personalitajiet pubblici. Pero’ altru timputa fatt li temmen li hu veru u fil-fatt hu veru, u altru bl-aktar mod irresponsabbli dak li jigik f’mohhok tiktbu u tippubblikah minghajr ma jkun hemm imqar bazi ta’ fondatezza f’dak li jigi asserit. Il-politika ta’ “publish and be damned” qatt ma sabet sostenn fil-Qrati taghna … …”.

Illi dan gie segwit ad litteram fis-sentenzi ricenti ta’ din il-Qorti kif presjeduta fil-kawza “Onor Dr Alfred Sant vs Dione Borg et” (P.A. (RCP) 30 ta’ April 2002) u “Onor Dr Alfred Sant vs Gordon Pisani et” (P.A. (RCP) 30 ta’ April 2002) fejn inghad: “Illi dan jinghad ghaliex l-istess generu ta’ persuni ghandhom l-istess drittijiet ghall-prezervazzjoni ta’ ntegrita`u l-fama taghhom daqs haddiehor, u f’certu sens malafama fil-konfront taghhom hija iktar serja, peress li l-operat taghhom huwa dejjem suggett ghall-iskrutinju tal-pubbliku, fuq liema appogg iddependi l-pozizzjoni u l-ezistenza taghhom, u ghalhekk tista’ ssir iktar hsara lill-stess persuni hekk suggetti ghall-opinjoni pubblika”.

Illi t-test li jigi applikat dwar is-sinifikat tal-istess diskors fiIkuntest
tal-kawza odjerna u f’kawzi simili huwa dak li gie applikat fis-sentenza “Onor. Dr. Joseph M. Fenech vs Louis Cauchi et” (A.C. (JSP) 16 ta’ Jannar 2002) u cjoe’ li l-ezami ghandu “jkun wiehed oggettiv biex tara jekk dak li nkiteb u gie prezentat bhala fatt lill-qarrejja kienx wiehed jew le malafamanti fil-konfront tal-persuna li lejha l-addebbitu kien dirett”.

Ma jistghux jigu attribwiti fatti mhux veri lill-persuna anke jekk din ghandha posizzjoni pubblika, u dak li jissejjah bhala “value judgement” ghandu wkoll jigi bbazat fuq fatti u mhux fuq invenzjonijiet, u dan in verita’ u fl-opinjoni ta’ din il-Qorti ma jistax ikun mod iehor, ghaliex ma jistax ikun hemm “value judgement” jekkalmenu dan ma jkunx ibbazat fuq il-verita’ u l-fatt rejali, ghaliex altrimenti kif jista’ jkun li tali “gudizzju” jkollu xi “valur”? (Obershlick vs Austria (1991)