25 Feb 2021 | Malta, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Daphne Caruana Galizia
A change of plea to guilty in a Maltese court this week by a man accused of being one of three hitmen who murdered investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 has brought hopes that her family may be one step closer to getting both answers about her assassination and justice.
On 16 October 2017, Caruana Galizia was assassinated by the triggering of an explosive device planted under her car seat outside her home in Bidnija, Malta. Her body was found by her son Matthew who said at the time, “I looked down and there were my mother’s body parts all around me”.
Caruana Galizia had been active for over thirty years as a journalist in the country and broke many exclusive stories around corruption on her Running Commentary blog, which remains on the web today as a testament to her tireless work.
Her work exposed corruption among politicians and business people in the country and their links with criminals outside the country’s borders which made her a target.
At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia had more than 40 lawsuits pending against her, which her son Matthew said were like a “never-ending type of torture” to his mother and which her sister, Corinne Vella, told Index the family were still facing even after her murder.
Since her death, there has been a renewed focus on Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public particiption) in Europe, in which Index on Censorship is playing a key role.
On Tuesday, Vincent Muscat, also known as Il Koħħu, changed his plea to guilty as he faced Judge Edwina Grima. Muscat, who had been accused of being one of the three hitmen who had conspired to kill Caruana Galizia, had asked for a presidential pardon two years ago but is now understood to have reached a deal with prosecutors to provide information about the murder.
Malta’s Newsbook has this week published details of the pardon, which required him to reveal the full story from being contracted to the murder itself, the identities of who planned the murder and who actually carried it out.
Muscat has now been given a 15-year sentence but has already spent three years in jail and could be out in seven years with remission.
The case against the other two alleged hitmen – brothers George and Alfred Degiorgio, known as “Ic-Ciniz” or the Chinese, and “Il-Fulu”, the Bean – will continue as a separate case.
The family’s lawyer, Jason Azzopardi, made a statement to the court following Muscat’s change of plea.
“A person who has admitted his involvement in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia has denied her her right to life and has denied her her right to enjoy her family, including her grandchildren who were born after she was killed,” the lawyer said.
“The macabre murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was intentional and should have been prevented. The victim has paid with her life and her family is suffering the loss of their loved one.
“I have said all this because if Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family were to respond to this admission on the basis of emotion alone, it is obvious what their response would be.
“However, in the circumstances, and given that they were informed by the Attorney General about the process in this case, the family expresses the hope that this step will begin to lead to full justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia.”
On Wednesday, the day after the plea change, two men – Robert Agius, and Jamie Vella – were arrested on suspicion of supplying the bomb and complicity in the murder of Caruana Galizia, based on information believed to have been provided by Muscat as part of his pardon.
Malta’s prime minister Robert Abela said that the charges meant that there is evidence of the “rule of law in Malta”. However, Abela would not rule out political involvement in the journalist’s murder.
Bernard Grech, leader of the opposition Maltese Nationalist party, said of the news: “Had our institutions not been hijacked by those seeking to protect themselves, Daphne Caruana Galizia would still be alive. We have gotten to this point thanks to the perseverance of those who persisted in pursuing justice no matter what.”
Reacting to Abela’s comments, Daphne’s son Andrew said, ”To move forward a country first needs to publicly acknowledge its failures. There is no shame in this. Only the promise of hope that we could one day be a better country. We’ve sacrificed too much to be robbed of this opportunity.”
- Index spoke to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s sister Corinne Vella in October about their childhood and Daphne’s desire to be a writer
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”18781″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
8 Dec 2020 | Media Freedom, News and features, Slapps, Sweden
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115804″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has joined with other press freedom organisations to strongly condemn the legal action that has been filed at the London High Court against the Swedish business and finance publication, Realtid, in connection with their investigation on the financing of energy projects involving a Swedish businessman.
We, along with Reporters Without Borders, Article 19, Media Defence and European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), are concerned about the use of litigation tactics to intimidate journalists into silence. The organisations consider the case, which was filed in November, to be a strategic lawsuit against public Participation (Slapp), which is aimed at intimidating publications, and the journalists who write for them, into silence.
Realtid is being sued by Svante Kumlin, a Swedish businessman, domiciled in Monaco. Realtid had been investigating Kumlin’s group of companies, Eco Energy World (EEW), ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway, a matter of clear public interest. The investigation began in September when Realtid’s reporters wrote about another stock market launch and discovered off-market sales of shares in EEW. Prior to publishing, the journalists contacted the company for an interview and for reply but did not receive a response.
In October, after publishing the report, the journalists once more tried to contact the people behind the company, including Kumlin to exercise their right of reply. After Kumlin declined to be interviewed, the journalists sent 14 questions that Kumlin could answer in writing, but Kumlin answered that his legal counsel “will respond to you directly”.
This was followed by several emails and attached letters from both a law firm in the United Kingdom, TLT Solicitors, and from Monaco, Gardetto. The firms threatened legal action in both countries if Realtid continued to investigate and to publish its investigations into the company and its owners.
On 20 November, Kumlin and TLT Solicitors filed a defamation lawsuit at the High Court in London against Realtid, its editor-in-chief and the two reporters behind the story.
In their letters the lawyers accuse the editor-in-chief, Camilla Jonsson, and the reporters, Per Agerman and Annelie Östlund, of defamation for publishing false information, and breaching a non-disclosure agreement by sharing, what the lawyers claim to be, confidential information. They also claim that Realtid violated Swedish press ethics and laws. If the latter claim is accurate, there are existing procedures to handle the case through the Swedish Media Ombudsman.
It is our assessment that it is inappropriate to threaten the magazine and the journalists with legal action in two jurisdictions, including by citing large fines and prison sentences.
“The fact that investigative journalists in Sweden, publishing in Swedish, for a Swedish readership could be inundated with threatening legal letters from other jurisdictions is outrageous,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, senior policy and advocacy officer at Index on Censorship. “Realtid’s courage in the face of these threats has been incredible, but whether or not a newsworthy investigation is published shouldn’t come down to individual courage. We need to put an end to Slapps with legislation.”
“The email conversations between the lawyers and Realtid are unpleasant reading”, says Erik Halkjaer, president of Reporters Without Borders Sweden (RSF Sweden). “It is obvious that these types of legal threats, or Slapps can be used as a threatening tool, as sharp as any weapon, to silence journalists. I strongly condemn the actions of Kumlin, who should know better. The people at Realtid should know that they have our and several other Swedish organisations strong support in this.”
Despite the continuous threats, Realtid has continued its solid journalistic investigations. Between 29 September and 13 November, the newspaper published ten articles on this investigation. Kumlin repeatedly declined to answer questions, despite the reporters having digital recordings and public documents proving the content of their articles.
“We know that over half of the cross-border Slapp suits facing journalists from Europe emanate from London. As anti-Slapp measures are being introduced in Brussels, there is an urgent need for the UK to reform its plaintiff-friendly system in line with its stated commitments to uphold and promote media freedom globally,” said Sarah Clarke, head of Europe for Article 19.
After taking an interest in the coverage of Realtid, the Norwegian financial paper Dagens Naeringsliv started its own investigation on the same story. Shortly after doing so, they too were contacted by TLT Solicitors, who used their legal action against Realtid to issue similar threats.
“Investigative journalism is essential to holding people in positions of power and responsibility to account. Journalists who do this work should not be subject to aggressive legal claims in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions designed to intimidate and oppress. Any dispute between the parties should be resolved before the appropriate forum, in Sweden,” said Padraig Hughes, legal director of Media Defence.
Norway and Sweden are ranked 1st and 4th out of 180 countries in RSF´s 2020 Press Freedom Index. The United Kingdom is ranked 35th out of 180.
For press inquiries contact:
Jessica Ní Mhainín, [email protected];
Erik Halkjaer, [email protected];
Sarah Clarke, [email protected] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
1 Dec 2020 | Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115685″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Today Index on Censorship is publishing “Slapped down: Six journalists on the legal efforts to silence them”, a report that includes the testimonies of journalists from across Europe, who have faced legal threats and actions as a result of their work.
“What the report shows is the ease with which the law can be used to intimidate those who are reporting in the public interest,” said senior policy research and advocacy officer Jessica Ní Mhainín, who has been leading Index’s Slapps work. “It demonstrates the impact that is has on journalists, both personally and professionally, and the chilling effect it can have on the press freedom more broadly.”
The publication of Index’s report coincides with the publication of “Protecting Public Watchdogs Across the EU: A Proposal for an EU Anti-SLAPP Law”. The proposed law is endorsed by 60 organisations, including Index on Censorship. If implemented, it would ensure that Slapps are dismissed at an early stage, that litigants would have to pay for abusing the law, and that Slapp targets would be provided with support to defend themselves.
“As it stands, whether or not an investigation about a powerful or wealthy entity comes to light relies in large part on a journalist’s courage and the good-will of the media outlet publishing their work. Are they willing to risk being sued?,” said Ní Mhainín. “Why are we allowing the fulfilment of such an important public service to be a potential risk? Why are we not providing more support to those whose work is so critical to our democracies?”
“We need an EU anti-Slapp directive to protect these watchdogs, whose work helps to hold the powerful to account and to keep our democratic debate alive.”
[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Nov 2020 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115664″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has launched an interactive tool aimed at helping journalists to understand whether the legal threats or actions they are facing could be considered a Slapp action. The assessment is based on the journalist’s answer to 13 questions about their case.
“Some journalists who are facing vexatious legal threats or actions might be wary about sharing details about the case beyond their immediate circle, including with media freedom organisations, for fear it might aggravate their legal situation,” said senior policy research and advocacy officer Jessica Ní Mhainín, who has been leading Index’s Slapps work.
“This tool helps journalists to quickly and easily understand whether the threats or action they are facing might be considered a Slapp while remaining completely anonymous.”
“We hope that this tool will empower journalists to make an informed decision about what action they want to take if they are advised that they are likely to be facing a Slapp,” Ní Mhainín said. “If they are facing a potential Slapp, we would advise them to seek support. Ultimately, the best way to defeat a Slapp is to make it backfire – to refuse to be silenced.”
The launch of the tool is part of the wider #StopSlapps campaign.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”Launch the Slapps tool” color=”danger” size=”lg” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fam-i-facing-a-slapps-lawsuit%2F”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
