The Times of Malta has deplored “interference” by the Chamber of Advocates after it issued a statement on a libel case concerning this newspaper.

Reacting to a statement released by the chamber yesterday in which it criticised an editorial in last weekend’s edition of The Sunday Times of Malta, editor-in-chief Steve Mallia said: “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.”

The chamber had earlier said that the newspaper had made an attempt to influence public opinion to support it so it could avoid payment of its dues.

The issue concerns a libel suit instituted by executive members of the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses. The case was over a front-page article in 2010, which revealed that the union 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.

The story was correct; however, the committee members claimed the story’s sub-heading, which stated ‘Top MUMN official investigated’, referred to them.

A Magistrate’s court ruled against the newspaper and ordered Mr Mallia and head of news Ariadne Massa, who wrote the article, to pay €11,500 in damages.

Why has the Chamber of Advocates decided to enter into the merits of a case that concerns this newspaper and other parties?

An appeals court reduced the damages to €4,000 and the newspaper filed an application before the Constitutional Court. However, the MUMN officials demanded to be paid before the case was decided, and last week a court issued a garnishee order against the journalists, freezing their personal accounts and their salaries.

In its editorial on Sunday, the newspaper described the action as a “vindictive attack”.

However, the chamber yesterday said that the newspaper’s claim that it was entitled not to pay out the damages pending the Constitutional Court’s judgment was “at best doubtful and is certainly not established case law”.

Mr Mallia said: “Unlike the chamber seeks to imply, we fully acknowledged that lawyers will differ as to the position we have taken on this issue – by stating the following in the editorial: ‘Some lawyers will argue that the damages awarded by the appeals court should have been paid before the Constitutional Court case is heard and might also say that the warrant is standard procedure’.”

The chamber also criticised what it said was the editorial’s incorrect implication that the magistrate, who happened to be the duty magistrate when the warrant was filed, should have or could have abstained from issuing the garnishee order. The magistrate was the same one who had decided the original libel case against the newspaper.

However, Mr Mallia said it was worrisome that the chamber misunderstood what was said in the editorial.

“We did not express surprise that the magistrate who signed the warrant was the same magistrate who decided the original case. We stated the following, ‘So you can imagine our surprise last Wednesday when the garnishee order, signed by the same magistrate who delivered the original judgment, was served’.”

Mr Mallia said most people who read that sentence properly would realise that the surprise was directed at being served with a garnishee order not at the magistrate who signed it, which was made amply clear through the insertion of commas.

“This was merely a statement of fact. There is no ‘paranoia’ on our part as the chamber is unfairly alleging, though the question needs to be asked whether it lies elsewhere.”

Mr Mallia also objected to the chamber’s claim that the newspaper was attempting to “influence public opinion on supporting it to avoid payment of its dues”.

“Firstly, we are well aware that public opinion has no influence on this issue or on the judiciary; secondly, it is an outright lie to state we are trying to avoid payment,” Mr Mallia said.

He said that the newspaper’s lawyers had advised that on the basis of judicial precedent, the Times of Malta could hold payment until definitive closure of the Constitutional proceedings.

“There is no question of payment not being effected if it is due, and everyone concerned with the case is aware of this. We would have expected the chamber to be aware of this too. As for its allegations of ‘abuse of power’, perhaps the chamber should have reflected on its own words a little more carefully before casting stones.”

The Institute of Journalists last week said the court decision to freeze the financial assets of the journalists was unjustified.

“The warrant is a step back and a direct threat to journalism,” the institute said as it called for a reform of libel laws.