The former editor and journalist for university student newspaper Insiter have won a libel case instituted against them by the operators of the university cafeteria, over a report claiming the university’s toilets were cleaner than the cafeteria’s tables.
Michaela Muscat and Anthony David Gatt were editor and reporter respectively for the news story ‘Never mind the toilet seats, here’s the canteen-table bacteria’, which reported the conclusions of a biological test carried out on toilet seats on campus, and the tables at the University canteen. The test found that the toilets were cleaner than the canteen tables at the time of the exercise.
The test was carried out by a group of biology students who used sterile cotton swabs across different surfaces at the University of Malta for a microbiology practical. According to the test, “the results gave a clear indication of the state of cleanliness of different areas.”
Whilst claiming that “inaccuracies and contamination could have contributed to sources of error”, it resulted that the number of colonies of bacteria obtained from the swab used for the table surface at the University canteen was greater than that obtained from the swab from the toilet seat, “possibly indicating a poor state of cleanliness of tables in the canteen.”
The company RJC Caterers, which operated the university cafeteria, sued the two students, for libel.
In his judgement, Magistrate Michael Mallia ruled that the report by biology student Falvia Zammit had been faithfully reported word for word, while the news story itself precised that the report was produced by students, and not professionals.
Mallia said that the Insiter’s journalists had in fact verified the authenticity of the biology report, which was then reproduced faithfully. He said the fact that the catering company later appointed independent parties to carry out their own tests, should not influence the conclusions that were derived from the biology students’ report, because their results had been historically correct at the time.
“The fact is that when the biology students produced their report, the results were those reproduced in the article by Gatt. He did not invent the story but faithfully reported the story and added his comments. Since these are based on true facts, they are not censorable and the plaintiff cannot claim damages,” Mallia said.
“This Court therefore finds the defendants wrote what was ‘fair comment’ because it was based on true and complete facts.”
One of the defendants, Michaela Muscat, a former MaltaToday journalist, said that at the time of the report, the student newspaper had been met with “a wall of silence, particularly from KSU… I am overjoyed with the ruling because justice was carried out and confirmed our integrity as journalists. Thanks to our lawyer Pawlu Lia, the magistrate confirmed that indeed the article was in the public’s interest and we did our utmost to reproduce the correct version of the facts.”