Updated | Advocates defend magistrate in Times of Malta garnishee order

The Chamber of Advocates issued a statement in defence of the magistrate who last week accepted an asset freeze on two Times of Malta journalists after the newspaper failed to pay damages it owed.

The garnishee order was issued against head of news Ariadne Massa and editor-in-chief Steve Mallia, on request of former nurses’ union boss Paul Pace.

The Sunday Times of Malta carried an editorial expressing its disapproval at the judgments of the Court of Magistrates and the Court of Appeal, saying it was surprised that the magistrate who signed the executive warrant was the same magistrate who had decided the case.

Four MUMN officials were damages by an appeals court in a libel suit against The Times. Two officials subsequently instituted proceedings against the Attorney General before the Constitutional Court contesting the appeals judgement, while two other officials who were not party to the constitutional case, demanded payment of the sum awarded to them with a garnishee order.

“The editorial incorrectly implies that the magistrate, who happened to be the duty magistrate when the warrant was filed, should have, or could have done otherwise. There are very specific circumstances at law that would allow a judge or magistrate refuse to sign a demand for the issue of an executive warrant and the existence of a constitutional case, even had he been privy to its existence, is not one of them,” the Chamber said.

“The editor should have been advised that the magistrate would have acted against the law had he not signed the application for the garnishee order. The claim of the Head of News and the Editor-in-Chief of the Times of Malta that payment of an amount declared due by the Court of Appeal is not payable pending the outcome of the constitutional case, citing as justification a decision in another case that judgments should not be executed pending constitutional proceedings, is at best doubtful and is certainly not established case-law.”

The Chamber said that treating the matter as a “vindictive act on us (journalists)” betrayed “a degree of paranoia and a misplaced belief that journalists are entitled to preferential treatment and should be held above the law”.

“The Chamber, believes in the importance both of the role of a free press in a democracy and a free and independent judiciary as one of the pillars of the rule of law – but it must voice its concern when in the name of the freedom of the press a newspaper attempts to influence public opinion in supporting it to avoid payment of its dues.

“This is not healthy in a democracy, and the thinly-veiled insinuations against the Magistrate concerned, verge on an abuse of the power that the paper enjoys and unfairly undermines public confidence in the judiciary.”

On his part, Times editor Steve Mallia said the newspaper fully acknowledged that lawyers will differ as to the position it had taken on this issue, stated in the editorial.

“Why has the Chamber – which was not mentioned in the editorial and nor is any practising lawyer – decided to enter into the merits of a case that concerns this newspaper and other parties? And, furthermore, why has it expressed an opinion on the status of a judgment by Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima that we will be citing to support our position in court. Such interference is abhorrent and deplorable.”

“Equally worrisome is that the Chamber has misunderstood what we said. We did not express surprise that the magistrate who signed the warrant was the same magistrate who decided the original case… There is no ‘paranoia’ on our part as the Chamber is unfairly alleging, though the question needs to be asked whether it lies elsewhere.”

Mallia said the newspaper took issue with the claim that it was trying to influence public opinion to support it having to avoid payment of its dues.

“On the basis of judicial precedent, all we have tried to do is to hold payment until definitive closure of the Constitutional proceedings instituted by us. Final judgment in those proceedings would establish whether the judgments delivered by the Magistrates Court and the Court of Appeal hold, or whether they are unconstitutional and ineffective.

“As for its allegations of ‘abuse of power’, perhaps the Chamber should have reflected on its own words a little more carefully before making such a statement.”