Are Spouses Of Politicians Fair Game Or Private Citizens? One Maltese Magistrate Has Called It.
Photo (from left to right): Michelle Muscat, wife of the Prime Minister, Patrick Dalli and his wife Equality Minister Helena Dalli.
A recent libel case has highlighted a delicate bone of contention: how much privacy should the spouses of politicians be afforded?
According to Magistrate Francesco Depasquale, family members of politicians should be protected from “undue interference” and “unfounded allegations”.
“The court has a duty to provide these private persons with all the protection they need, both to protect the individuals concerned but even more so to ensure that the country keeps having people who are ready to sacrifice their private lives and enter public life without the fear of dragging their loved ones into the fierce arena of politics,” the magistrate asserted in his judgment.
He was referring to a case instituted by Patrick Dalli, a developer, who is also the husband of Equality Minister Helena Dalli.
Mr Dalli won a libel case against Times of Malta and its former journalist Caroline Muscat over several articles about a property owned by one of Mr Dalli’s companies.
The property, which at the time of the articles was ‘sold’ on Promise of Sale (konvenju) to a private individual, had been served with an enforcement notice because it was not built according to the specifications of the permit.
The infringements included the construction of a swimming pool larger than stated in the permit, excavations in the garden’s paved area and under the living room to create a basement garage, a washroom at roof level built larger than permitted plus an additional two rooms and a corridor on the same level that were not authorised. A skylight was also created without a permit, and an additional supporting wall was built at the back of the building higher than permitted, according to the enforcement notice quoted by The Times.
The stories began after photos showed works being carried out in spite of the enforcement notice – something that was challenged during court proceedings.
According to the journalist’s testimony, the stories were not written because the owner of the property was the minister’s husband. Stories about enforcement notices and illegalities were the order of the day when she was the newspaper’s planning reporter. She was treating Mr Dalli as she would treat other private citizens.
But the court felt otherwise, insisting that the stories were written purely to cause damage to Helena Dalli. And since the property was in the process of being sold to another individual who was the person allegedly carrying out works at the property in question, the stories were deemed to be libellous.
So what are the consequences of this judgment? And how much protection should be afforded to the family members of politicians while still allowing journalists to hold politicians to account? These are murky waters.
Should journalists conclude that they are only allowed to question permit infringements if these are being carried out by politicians or other public persons?
Must journalists start to prove that stories they write about family members of politicians are not being written because of that relationship?
Does it mean that family members of politicians can get away with anything because any scrutiny can be interpreted as being motivated by political agendas?
When it comes to financial reporting, family members of politicians are indeed deemed to be “politically-exposed persons”. This is because otherwise it would be very easy for politicians to hide their businesses and assets behind the names of their family members. Declaring themselves to be PEPs (politically-exposed persons) makes them vulnerable to closer investigations by financial authorities, which is essential if we are to combat money laundering and other financial crimes.
But should journalists be afforded the same liberties? Apparently not, at least according to this magistrate.
“If the judgment is appealed and overturned, either by a superior court or by the European Court of Human Rights, this could just be a blip in Malta’s legal history. If not, it may have serious repercussions on how carefully journalists must thread when it comes to family members of politicians. “
In this case, the magistrate felt that Patrick Dalli was a victim, whose only crime was being the husband of a minister. And by writing about his property, accusing him of wrongdoing, and requesting information about his business assets that was only accessible behind paywalls, the journalist crossed a red line.
This red line was priced at a hefty €10,000: €2,000 per article.
If the judgment is appealed and overturned, either by a superior court or by the European Court of Human Rights, this could just be a blip in Malta’s legal history. If not, it may have serious repercussions on how carefully journalists must thread when it comes to family members of politicians.
We’ll have to wait and see.
(Source of cover photo: Helena Dalli’s Facebook page).
What do you make of the story? Have your say in the comments below.
READ NEXT: Malta Legal Threats Spark EU Fight Against Vexatious Libel Lawsuits
