Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 142
June 2011
Aquilina and Others v. Malta - 28040/08
Judgment 14.6.2011 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Damages award against newspaper which had made all reasonable attempts to verify accuracy of report on court proceedings: violation
Facts – The first applicant was the editor, the second applicant a court reporter and the third applicant a printer working for a national newspaper. In 1995 the second applicant attended a court hearing to report on a bigamy case. At some point in the proceedings, the atmosphere in the court room became chaotic and the second applicant believed that the magistrate had found one of the lawyers in contempt of court. She tried to verify what she had heard through the records of the proceedings but was unable to do so as the magistrate and the court deputy registrar had already left their chambers. She checked however with another reporter, also present in the courtroom, who confirmed that he too had understood that the lawyer concerned had been found in contempt. This was reported the next day in the newspaper under the headline “Lawyer found in Contempt of Court”. The lawyer concerned immediately contacted the second applicant to protest. She verified the minutes of the proceedings and, noting that no mention had been made of the lawyer having been found guilty of contempt, ensured that the newspaper issued an apology. The lawyer nonetheless brought civil proceedings for defamation and was awarded 300 Maltese liras (approximately EUR 720).
Law – Article 10: The domestic courts’ judgments had amounted to an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression. That interference had been “prescribed by law”, namely the Press Act, and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.
As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court reiterated that special grounds were required before the media could be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that were defamatory of private individuals. Whether such grounds existed depended in particular on the nature and degree of the defamation in question and the extent to which the media could reasonably regard their sources as reliable with respect to the allegations. By giving readers the impression that the lawyer had been found guilty of contempt of court, the headline had contained a factual allegation, which, since it concerned a lawyer’s behaviour in the exercise of his profession, was a matter of public interest. What was relevant was whether the second applicant had had the means to verify the facts and whether she had abided by her duty of responsible reporting.
On the first point, the Court observed that records of proceedings were usually brief minutes which, since they did not contain a detailed record of all that took place, could not be considered the sole source of truth for purposes such as court reporting. To limit court reporting to facts reproduced in the records of proceedings, and to bar reports based on what a journalist had heard and seen with his or her own eyes and ears, as corroborated by others, would be an unacceptable restriction of freedom of expression and the free flow of information. While there may be a presumption that the official record of court proceedings is complete and accurate, such a presumption may be rebutted by other evidence of what occurred during the course of the proceedings. Indeed, all the evidence – apart from the minutes of the hearing – suggested that the lawyer had been found to be in contempt of court. Even the prosecutor’s evidence, which was plainly relevant and came from an independent source, had corroborated what the second applicant had stated, yet little or no attention appeared to have been paid to it and no explanation had been given for disregarding it.
As to the second point, there was no reason to doubt that the second applicant had, in line with best journalistic practice, attempted to verify what had taken place in the court room and could not reasonably have been expected to do more, especially bearing in mind that news is a perishable commodity and delaying publication may well deprive it of all value and interest. Noting, too, that the second applicant had issued an apology the Court found that she had at all times acted in good faith and in accordance with her duty of responsible reporting.
It followed that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation of others.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 4,000, jointly, in respect of non pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy