Abroad, members of the public on a daily basis pore over the foibles and antics of football players, actors and singers. That is the foundation upon which each tabloid empire is built, in a constant drive to quench an insatiable thirst for gossip and dirt.

The demand for smut is, it seems, classless. Working men read the red tabloids in the factory toilets, while white-collared employees take a surreptitious peek at them from behind the cover of their briefcase. It is also ageless. The more middle-aged, particularly of the female variety, prefer to buy tabloids that pose as respectable but do smut just as well as, sometimes better than, the others.

With perhaps one exception, in Malta today there are no real stars. So here the prurient together with the curious must instead make do with politicians, certain people in the media and, it appears, members of the judiciary. Until recently, this talk has been limited to street gossip - the thinking being that a tabloid newspaper would never last. True as this latter statement may be, however, it is not because people do not wish to see it. Now we have documented proof of that.

Some of Daphne Caruana Galizia's blog entries have been horrendously personal, relentless and - as an utterly tasteless reference to a human being's deceased father a few days ago exemplified - repulsive. Yet notwithstanding all this, there is probably not a single internet-literate person in Malta who has not read what she has written about Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera.

Throughout, Ms Caruana Galizia has attempted to defend the contents by making 'revelations' which she insists are in the public interest. This argument stutters on two counts: one, a serious allegation, if substantiated, does not need to be propped up by smut unless one has no other objective than to court publicity; two, her onslaught was improperly motivated because she only chose to publicise these allegations after she felt personally slighted by the magistrate.

But, for all this, the argument does not collapse. The allegations remain, which is why the magistrate decided to take court action in relation to libel.

It is for the court to decide whether she will be successful in her quest. However, during the course of this case worrying developments have occurred: a senior police officer has denied Dr Scerri Herrera's assertion that he bought her drinks, while the Commission for the Administration of Justice was forced to issue a statement clarifying that no decision had been taken in any of its proceedings concerning the magistrate after she said the contrary in court. It was also reported - without an ensuing denial - that she publicly dined with a Nationalist MP who is a party in a civil case due before her.

Even if the court finds in her favour, Dr Scerri Herrera is likely to be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny Police Commissioner George Grech experienced when he instituted a court case in 2001 after accusations were made against him. Although he was cleared in the overall scheme of things, certain facts emerged which made it impossible for him to continue in his job because the police force had been brought into disrepute.

There is something much bigger at stake here than Ms Caruana Galizia or Dr Scerri Herrera. It is the reputation and integrity of the judiciary, which must be maintained at all costs. The question is: will any steps be taken after this case to assure this?