Journalists at this media organisation have faced various occupational hazards over the years: irregular hours, time pressures, mistakes, being on the receiving end of insults or violence… but one thing no member of editorial staff at the Times of Malta has ever come up against is a garnishee order.

That is what the editor-in-chief and the head of news were presented with last Wednesday when a court official turned up at our offices in St Paul Street. It was the latest twist to a most bizarre case.

Notification of the Times of Malta’s constitutional case.

On August 22, 2010, this newspaper had published a front-page story revealing that the nurses’ union (MUMN) group committee chairman at Mater Dei Hospital had swindled vulnerable patients out of hundreds of euros in collaboration with a salesman posing as a doctor.

Our facts were accurate. However, to our immeasurable surprise, the four members of the MUMN’s executive, led by Paul Pace, who today is a government consultant, filed a libel suit – claiming that since the story’s sub-heading stated ‘Top MUMN official investigated’, we were referring to them. We were not and in the story this was amply clear. Furthermore, this newspaper had withheld the name of the man in question purely out of prudence.

So we met in court with the four officials. Even though we felt there was no issue, we were more than willing to reiterate through a declaration that the story did not refer to them and our lawyer attempted to discuss the matter with theirs. ‘We want money,’ came the reply, and the conversation ended there.

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale ruled in their favour, so much so that he said the journalist had virtually “colluded” with the Ministry of Health on the story. This comment irked us more than his decision, because the only way journalists can produce stories is to communicate with others, though it was heartening that the appeals court, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, described the remark as “gratuitous”.

Madam Justice Grima also stated in her judgment that the facts of the story were correct; however, she concluded that our sub-heading “could have been interpreted” as referring to the organisation’s executive. She therefore still ruled against us, but reduced the damages from €11,500 to €4,000.

Though we fully respected the ruling, we disagreed with it and therefore took the matter to the constitutional Court because we believe a very important matter of principle is at stake. The case was appointed for hearing for June 11, 2015, but had to be deferred.

In the meantime, the four MUMN officials – through their lawyer – sent notices saying they wanted to be paid immediately. Our lawyers informed them that we were awaiting the outcome of the Constitutional case before making payment because of a ruling by Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima which stated that this procedure presented a legitimate impediment to the execution of the appeals court judgment.

So you can imagine our surprise last Wednesday when the garnishee order, signed by the same magistrate who had delivered the original judgment, was served. This was a direct strike at us personally, since everybody knows that it is the newspaper – not individual journalists – that pays the bill. To add insult to injury, not only does the warrant cover our personal bank accounts but it also states that our employer is not permitted to deposit our salaries into those accounts.

Some lawyers will argue that the damages awarded by the appeals court should have been paid before the Constitutional Court case is heard and they might also say that the warrant is standard procedure. Why should we consider ourselves to be special?

Well, we don’t. We are just trying to abide by – whether one agrees with it or not – a precedent set by a Maltese judge in another case. The four union officials, on the other hand, who are so keen to present themselves as not being “hungry” for their €1,000 each, clearly cannot wait for the Constitutional Court hearing which is now due to take place on October 22.

It must also be said that we are shocked that Madam Justice Padovani Grima’s ruling was not given weight by the magistrate and that the courts seem so willing to jeopardise the essential role played by the media by issuing a warrant that is normally reserved for people who refuse to pay a debt.

We will soldier on, and thank the many people who have expressed support. The response has been truly humbling.