Here's one reason why it's in the public interest to know that the magistrate dines and parties with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando
I wonder who's winding this particular clock?
Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera is currently sitting in judgement over a civil suit in which Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is the one being sued, by Labour MP Karmenu Vella and others.
The case reference is 113/2008. The most recent sitting was on the 4th of this month, and the next sitting is on the 29th.
Karmenu Vella might not give a damn, but if I or you were the one suing Jeffrey, we would have serious issues with going to Tarragon and finding the presiding magistrate sitting there chummily with him over dinner.
It’s bad enough that he is a frequent guest at her parties and that she saw nothing wrong in saying, in court last week, that he was a guest at her 45th birthday party.
And this when she is currently presiding over a case in which he is being sued.
The brass neck – it’s unbelievable. No wonder she’s trying to get a protection order against me to stop me reporting on her blatant breaches of ethics.
I’m beginning to think that she really doesn’t have a grip on the distinction between wrong and right, or rather, correct and incorrect – and when you’re a magistrate, that’s a serious failing.
105 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“With whom” yes, ubdoubtedly
“Where” and “at what precise time” no – that is unacceptable.
[Daphne – Who says so, Twanny? Come on, tell me. I’m all ears.]
That’s a strange observation, Twanny. It may be unacceptable to the magistrate, but she’s already shown that her standards are nothing to live by.
My opinion as (modestly) an informed and (fairly) well-read layman.
[Daphne – Well, here’s the thing, Twanny: I’m not a layman.]
Twanny, you’re fighting a lost battle, dude. As controversial as her methods might be (to some), Daphne does have a point – a very, very valid point in this case.
Where did you read this nonsense, Twanny?
I’m with Twanny on this one. The right to privacy has to be weighed up against the public interest. Revealing that people with a clear conflict of interest have been dining together is clearly in the public interest. Revealing that they are dining ‘right now’ ‘at Tarragon in St Paul’s Bay’ adds nothing to the news value of the story.
[Daphne – The day I wish to take lessons in internet journalism from a know-nothing amateur is the day I’ll call you. I’m sorry to be blunt, but honestly. What next – thinking you can design a better theatre than Renzo Piano? Living in Malta can be hell. If we could remove the people it would be perfect.]
There has been very little jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of the ECHR’s right to privacy, and the boundaries between private and public interests are not as clearly set out as you seem to be implying.
[Daphne – You’re obviously not a follower of the international press. I suggest you widen your horizons a little before you come across as even more of a backwoods bunny. Tiger Woods, John Terry, Carla Bruni, Silvio Berlusconi – those names ring any bells with you? And we’re not even talking sex here: we’re talking dinner.]
I know none of the people involved, voted PN last time round, and have nothing but contempt for this Sandro Chetcuti fellow, corrupt judicial figures or moronic placards and chants at numbskull rallies.
[Daphne – ‘I know none of the people involved’. Enough said. And yet you think your opinion is more valid than mine. Unbelievable. There’s a parliament building waiting to be designed. Why don’t you and Astrid have a go? This place, the people – just too, too much.]
I also find the Maltese (although of course some would call it Mintoffian) diktat of ‘Min mhux maghna, kontra taghna’ to be risible, parochial and intellectually insulting.
[Daphne – Good, at least we can agree on something.]
Twanny,
I understand your concern. You’re not amused by skeletons finding their way out of the cupboard, despite the effort (puerile and clumsy as it can get) to change the way the Labour Party is perceived.
Joe Grima is not a skeleton. Nor is the magistrate.
Infantile name-calling. If you cannot discuss in a mature way, I suggest you leave it to those who can.
[Daphne – Listen to yourself, Twanny. Nobody twisted your arm into coming here. You can’t stay away.]
Twanny, from an old sailor, one should not piss into the wind.
I do not wish to sound like I’m defending Twanny, but you are all risking a protection order from him now. At least, from his comment above, he seems to have understood the gravity of the case.
Now Twanny, as a well-read layman, do you still see the point in the magistrate seeking a protection order in this instance? Or is she trying to stop freedom of expression?
Twanny can’t ask for a protection order. That would give him away.
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=222936&lng=ENG
Reference 113/2008
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Vella Karmenu Onor Et vs Pullicino Orlando Jeffrey Onor
Lawyer Abela Toni
No. Date Time Hall State Outcome Judiciary
29/03/2010 09:00 Possible Waiver Of Cause Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
27 04/03/2010 10:45 8 Probable Compromise Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
5 21/01/2010 09:00 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
19 15/12/2009 09:00 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
30 27/11/2009 10:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
20 24/11/2009 10:30 Proof Sitting Adjourned Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
29 08/10/2009 11:00 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
34 07/07/2009 11:00 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
25 10/06/2009 10:00 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
5 26/05/2009 09:00 8 Other Information Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Perhaps the Chief Justice and the Commission for the Administration of Justice might wish to look into this.
That’s Luke 11:23.
Luke 11.23: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
Mintoff, eh? A case of the devil quoting scripture to his own ends.
Twanny – is it that difficult for you to see that the three (3) are interlinked?
I haven’t understood one thing about this mess.
Why doesn’t Magistrate Herrera put an end to things by behaving as she should rather than by trying to stop people pointing out what’s wrong?
That much is within her gift.
It’s because she’s got away with so much for so long and wants to carry on doing it. Maybe it didn’t occur to her that somebody would come along and say STOP.
Yes, you are right. It escapes me why she continues to be defiant. You would have expected her to behave correctly from now on.
That’s asking too much of someone who has behaved incorrectly for so long.
Why, Maryanne? It simply goes like this.
Thanks to an opposition in parliament that takes the meaning of that word literally and that also acts solely for its own partisan ends, no motion of impeachment presented in parliament against members of the judiciary has ever obtained the necessary two-thirds majority to have them removed from office.
This has developed into a situation where any member of the judiciary so inclined can now safely ignore the code of ethics – in fact, members could do almost what the hell they like – and the worst that could happen would be that they would be relieved of their duties to spend the rest of their ‘working’ life doing nothing on full pay – and probably with all perks included – at direct cost to the taxpayer, and all guaranteed by the consolidated fund.
Then when they ‘retire’, they’ll get a pension.
All that is needed by such individuals is to weather the storm and, as added assurance, usefully build up appropriate relationships with members of parliament.
Michael, you have summarised it well. If I may, you can add “In the odd cases where the media start breathing down their neck, seek a protection order – obviously, from a fellow member of the judiciary.”
That does not impede any of the political parties from tabling an impeachment motion. Whether or not the motion is likely to be passed or not is beside the point. If half of the House shows its dissatisfaction with a member of the Judiciary, it is politically relevant enough to warrant a resignation.
Maybe Twanny has a restaurant and is objecting to the free advertising for Tarragon?
Maybe he would have had no objection had the restaurant been called Wild Time… er, sorry … Wild Thyme.
Twanny is grinding axes because Magistrate Herrera is on his side of the political divide.
Now, why isn’t he doing the same thing for a certain Mr Chetcuti?
That Magistrate Herrera has any particular leanings towards Labour (apart from the fact that her brother is a Labour MP) is a gratuitous assertion not based on any discernible facts.
[Daphne – Another illogical argument. ‘They are not discernible by me, therefore they are not discernible.’]
I, for one, would not be pleased if it were true. In fact, I don’t even like the idea of her brother being a Labour MP – his conservative ideas would be more at home in the PN.
[Daphne – Which part of his conservatism are you thinking about: his opposition to EU membership and his backing of Sharon No2EU? His conservative views on extra-marital relationships and the targeting of other people’s marriages? His conservative approach to mentioning vaginas and the prime minister in a loud voice in parliament, while that prime minister is speaking? I don’t blame you for not wanting either of them in your party fold. They’re an embarrassment. And yes, read my lips because about this I know rather a lot more than you do: Consuelo Herrera, like her brother and like their father before them, is Old Labour, and New Labour under sufferance.]
What is HM the Chief Justice doing about these allegations? Is he satisfied that one of his magistrates is trying cases while she sits with the defendant at dinner?
Conservative ideas, Jose Herrera?
His intimidation tactics?
His camaradie with the Valletta “aristocracy”?
Come on!
Twanny, you’re being a pedant.
Code of Ethics for Magistrates
Article 12
Members of the judiciary shall not associate or show familiarity with persons or associations that could discredit such members of the judiciary or the office they hold, and they shall avoid conduct that could give rise to public scandal.
Article 13
Members of the judiciary shall not discuss out of court, cases that are pending in court.
Article 19
Members of the judiciary shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with any of the parties involved in a case …. regarding a case that has not yet been decided ….
Be fair. Maybe she hadn’t read article 19. Or was that added before the ban on Facebook?
I don’t think she’s read the Code, period. First day in office she probably used it to prop up a chair leg.
I haven’t yet read the Code of Ethics and can still recognise the behavior of the magistrate to be improper for someone in that position.
How can you prove what their conversation at table was about? Eh, eh?
[Daphne – Nobody has to. It’s a breach of the code of ethics for a magistrate to dine with a defendant in a case over which he/she is currently presiding.]
Daphne, I appreciate the answer, and I subscribe to it completely.
However, I must “complain” that you removed the smiley ( ;) ) which gave my comment a different hue.
My question was rhetorical.
This way it looks literal.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
[Daphne – Smileys and multiple interrogation/exclamation marks are not allowed on this blog.]
It’s spelled out in article 19. You can download the full code of ethics here.
http://www.judiciarymalta.gov.mt/code
And while you’re at it, download a copy for Magistrate Herrera too. It appears that her memory needs to be refreshed.
You can’t prove anything either way. That’s why the code exists. To prevent this sort of speculation that may, very rightly so, be perceived to have inference on the outcome of a case.
Whichever way the case is decided, the public is still in doubt:
is it because of their friendly relationship?
is it to prove that their friendly relationship does not affect the decision?
In my opinion the magistrate should be asked to pack it in.
The magistrate cannot be asked to pack it in. She can pack it in or she can be impeached.
Her brother, a lawyer by profession and the shadow minister of justice, would agree. Whether he’d vote for impeachment is another story.
Daphne,
Since you have roughly 130,000 page views a day in these recent weeks, could you give us the number of unique visitors? Having this data may be a good sample to create a democratic poll of whether people think she should resign or not! Come on, go for it.
[Daphne – I don’t have that information. But thank you for the idea of the poll. We can use a voting system that will register IP numbers and block the same person from voting twice. timesofmalta.com uses that system.]
That would create great excitement in the grotto. All the elves will now be waiting to pounce. Are you sure you want them swarming all over your blog? Not that they’re not doing that already, of course.
The system used by timesofmalta.com isn’t that fail-safe. I voted several times in one poll, and there were other times when I tried to vote for the first time and was told that I couldn’t because I had voted already.
[Daphne – The system doesn’t recognise you. It recognises your IP address. So that might have been the problem.]
Well, timesofmalta.com’s poll is a bit buggy, and filtering by mac address far more reliable, but one must be practical and accept there will be a 2 – 3 % margin of error.
No unique visitors count? Mela xi blog ghandek? A high view count is expected here (and I suspect we’re dealing with the ‘hit’ counter here). One person alone can click a hundred times per session, checking for new comments and returning to check on replies, etc.
This is not to downplay the achievement of this blog, but the ‘unique visitors’ count is more reliable.
[Daphne – I don’t need a unique visitor count. Rankings are based on number of views.]
The elves are all going to gather around one computer linked to a big screen to make sure that they are counted together as one view.
use google analytics. it counts the first visit from the IP Address
http://www.google.com/analytics/
And rest assured that any such poll will have every Labour elf invading the electronic media, more than they are doing now.
I voted in favour of resignation.
The question is who are the people who do not want her to resign and why?
What are our MPs waiting for, then?
[Daphne – It’s not that simple, Maria.]
There has to be a recommendation for impeachment.
Which MPs, Maria? Do you mean Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Stephen Spiteri, Robert Musumeci, Jose Herrera and the rest of his party?
Isn’t this the magistate we’re talking about? What was she doing on the cover of a magazine?
Code of ethics for members of the judiciary:
“28. …. members of the Judiciary shall not seek publicity or the approval of the public or the media.”
http://www.mediatoday.com.mt/maltanow/sep05.html
And there she is, doing all three at once.
Oh my, very sexy. Making up for lost time while striking a magisterial pose with another woman and giving a couple of policemen some kinky ‘girl on girl’ fantasies.
Miskin, Lawrence – and no, I don’t mean Gonzi.
Miskin? Nahseb li ha’ r-ruh!
I know Lawrence before and after, and he definitely is better off without her.
Robert Arrigo m’ghandux xi kawza quddiem Consuelo? U Stephen Spiteri jew il-girlfriend tieghu Mariella l-hairdresser m’ghandiex xi kawza quddiem Consuelo?
Ghandu din, Bormliza.
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=189742&lng=ENG
Bormliza – Would you care to divulge further information?
Court cases may be accessed on the site on the link provided; having further information would help: http://www.gov.mt/servicecluster.asp?s=47&l=1
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando should resign.
Robert Musumeci should resign.
Jose Herrera should resign.
Magistrate Scerri Herrera should resign.
And so should any other politician or public official associated with these scandals.
Mr President, Chief Justice and the Commissioner of Police – for the sake of this country, please investigate and take no half measures.
Robert Musumeci has nothing to resign from. But I agree that if we were to see the last of him, that would be terrific.
He can resign as PN (that’s Nationalist Party) Mayor. You may have forgotten that.
From the party too — he is a disgrace and a rogue.
You’re asking too much FGS. By your demands you’re presuming that these individuals have a shred of decency to share between them. Alas we no that such a shred is non-existent.
“Code of ethics for members of the judiciary:
“28. …. members of the Judiciary shall not seek publicity or the approval of the public or the media.”
Now I’m starting to wonder. Has she EVER read the Code of Ethics and if in the affirmative, does she have a comprehension problem?
She must have had some kind of an interview before being appointed magistrate. Could it be that she was handed a script with the answers to the prearranged questions?
The next time the Labour Party (and Joe Grima in particular) dare mention the word ‘corruption’ I shall throw up.
I do not see any major issue in the magistrate asking for a protection order. After all, she probably won’t get one anyway. I would be more concerned if she asks for a police escort 24/7.
Why would you be concerned? Are you married to the police escort?
Maybe it is concern for Robert Musumeci.
Some policemen don’t need to be asked by an escort.
Use this plugin for WordPress … http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-polls/
It works very well and allows you to control polls on your website. Very nifty.
Here’s another one.
Wasn’t Miriam Dalli at the magistrate’s now (in)famous birthday party?
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=222917&lng=ENG
Reference 98/2008
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Avv Fenech Peter vs Dalli Miriam Et
Lawyer Zammit Maempel Joseph
14/04/2010 12:00 Proof Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
9 09/03/2010 10:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
4 26/01/2010 09:00 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
5 02/12/2009 09:00 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
23 05/11/2009 09:45 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
15 06/10/2009 09:00 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
20 16/06/2009 09:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
24 27/04/2009 10:15 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
25 17/02/2009 09:15 8 Cross Examination Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
17 05/12/2008 09:30 8 Cross Examination Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
19 21/10/2008 10:00 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
23 22/09/2008 09:30 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
23 24/06/2008 09:15 8 Note Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
15 09/05/2008 09:00 8 First Hearing Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
15 07/05/2008 09:00 First Hearing Sitting Adjourned Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Chief Justice, please take note.
Chief Justice, please do not take note. Take action.
And didn’t she say herself that Jesmond Mugliett was at her 45th birthday party too?
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=215400&lng=ENG
224/2007
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Mugliett Jesmond Perit vs Zrinzo Azzopardi Stefan Avukat
Lawyer Fenech Peter
29/03/2010 09:00 Other Information Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
3 04/03/2010 09:00 8 Other Information Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
14 21/01/2010 09:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
15 27/10/2009 10:15 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
23 16/09/2009 09:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
28 11/06/2009 09:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
40 22/04/2009 11:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
21 05/02/2009 09:30 8 Proof – Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
5 21/11/2008 09:00 8 Cross Examination Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
1 17/11/2008 09:00 Cross Examination Sitting Adjourned Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
26 25/09/2008 10:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
27 24/06/2008 09:45 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
20 08/05/2008 09:45 8 Proof – Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
30 17/04/2008 11:00 8 Proof – Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
19 19/02/2008 11:30 8 Proof – Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
14 14/01/2008 09:15 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
11 06/11/2007 09:00 8 First Hearing Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Oh, la la. And here are two of her party friends slugging it out in her court.
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=215416&lng=ENG&FrmPageNo=2&FrmSection=1
225/2007
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Mugliett Jesmond Perit vs Dalli Miriam Et
Lawyer Fenech Peter
14/04/2010 09:00 Proof – Defendant Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
6 11/03/2010 11:30 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
16 21/01/2010 09:00 8 Reappointed Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
13 01/12/2009 10:30 Proof Abstention Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
6 26/10/2009 11:30 Proof Sitting Adjourned Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
17 20/04/2009 11:30 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
26 02/12/2008 11:00 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
14 06/11/2008 11:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
12 09/10/2008 11:30 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
4 08/04/2008 10:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
10 28/02/2008 10:00 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
10 11/02/2008 11:00 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
12 28/01/2008 11:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
3 08/10/2007 09:00 First Hearing Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Oh, and wasn’t Robert Arrigo at that magisterial party too?
He also in this one.
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=189742&lng=ENG
323/2005
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Arrigo Onorevoli Robert Pro Et Noe vs Farrugia Lino Pro Et Noe
Lawyer Farrugia Reuben B
27/04/2010 11:00 Proof Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
15 10/03/2010 10:00 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
45 14/01/2010 10:30 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
4 10/11/2009 10:30 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
29 27/10/2009 11:00 8 Reappointed Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
2 11/03/2009 09:00 8 Other Information Sine Die Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
3 04/02/2009 09:00 8 Other Information Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
31 11/12/2008 09:00 8 Probable Compromise Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
14 21/10/2008 09:00 Probable Compromise Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
1 22/09/2008 09:00 8 Other Information Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Uh-ho. Here’s Jesmond Mugliett again. Did they become friends in the courtroom?
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/kawzi/ccm_sitt.asp?FrmCM=220209&lng=ENG
386/2007
Court Of Magistrates (Civil) – Malta
Names Mugliett Jesmond Perit vs Sant Alfred
Lawyer Fenech Peter
27/04/2010 09:00 Proof – Defendant Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
6 08/03/2010 09:00 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
8 26/01/2010 09:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
14 02/12/2009 09:00 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
24 05/11/2009 09:45 8 Proof – Defendant Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
26 06/10/2009 09:30 8 Proof Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
17 16/06/2009 09:15 8 Continuation Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
23 27/04/2009 10:15 8 Cross Examination-Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
28 05/03/2009 09:30 8 Cross Examination-Plaintiff Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
17 08/01/2009 09:00 8 Delivery Of Judgement If No Ob Deferred Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera
Anzi m’hemmx perizi ta’ Musumeci peress li hareg in-njus fil-publiku li ghandhom relejxinxip.
Joe Grima wanted to honour Mike Bongiono for sending tourists to Malta..
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/09/09/t2.html
Just to spell it out to you:
1. I wrote that there are several gray areas when it comes to the limitations of the right to privacy. John Terry, Bruni or Berlusconi have nothing to do with it. Not to mention Tiger Woods who, being an American living in America, falls some 6000km away from the ECHR’s remit.
If you really knew as much about jurisprudence on the matter as you like to make out, you would have mentioned Max Mosley’s ongoing case at the ECHR – a case which is actually being tried and which could have serious legal repercussions on the press – rather than the old and tired Terry, Bruni and Berlusconi (or Vernon Kay, Ashley Cole etc etc) references we’re all so tired of.
[Daphne – You walked right into that one, Fanon, and not-so-smartly illustrated my point that the law distinguishes between reporting on the public activities of public figures in public places (a restaurant is a public place; you have the choice of eating in somebody’s home) and using illicit means to photograph a public person in private surroundings. Max Mosley, who has a fetish for sado-masochism that may or may not be the result of being raised by England’s most notorious fascist, was photographed while being given the treatment in a prostitute’s dungeon. It was a set-up job in collusion with the prostitute. How you can even begin to compare this with reporting that three politicians and a magistrate are having dinner in a restaurant is beyond me. A more accurate comparison would be with Malta’s own famous tal-haxix who wrote off a vegetable debt in return for sex and was then photographed in the buff by the naughty women – the difference being that the photographs were not published but were used to blackmail him, and that he is not a public figure, so protected by privacy laws anyway.]
2. You knowing the people involved does not make your opinion on the boundaries of the free press any more valid than mine, or anyone else’s. If that was the way things worked, we could simply do away with the law courts, chuck the constitution out the window and revert to the vigilante justice of the wild west.
[Daphne – What I meant by that, and it was clear enough, is that I know more facts and more about this matter than you do, which means that in your position I would keep quiet. You know as well as I do that the law does not protect the privacy of public figures when there are public interest issues involved. A magistrate eating dinner with a defendant in a case over which she presides is a public interest matter, not a private one. A difficult government MP eating dinner with somebody who, a few days ago, suggested in parliament interesting uses for genital organs the prime minister does not possess is a public interest matter, not a private one.]
3. The references to Renzo Piano and Astrid Farrugia are completely irrelevant – I never mentioned either of them, nor have I ever expressed an opinion on them or their work. Your trying to discredit my opinions by misrepresenting me is a cheap trick often used by the maltastar and one news hacks you spend so much time disparaging. Peas in a pod?
[Daphne – It is not at all irrelevant, Fanon. Both your arguments and Astrid’s are the result of a near-identical mindset. I haven’t worked out whether it is a problem in our education system, or in our general upbringing, but I have noticed that something happens in childhood which decimates Maltese people’s thinking skills in such a way that a massive struggle must be made to get back on track, and very often that doesn’t happen. So what we have here are Maltese adults with an accumulation of facts and information and very little idea of how to process them sensibly, rationally and logically. It’s frightening, and it’s the main reason half the population continued to vote Labour regardless. And please don’t tell me once more than you voted PN in the last two elections.]
Dan ma sabhux l-LLD b’xejn fit-Twistees. Try a Kinder Sorpresa, Fanon.
I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick, Daphne. I never said that you shouldn’t have reported that the dinner took place. In fact, I said quite the opposite – that there is a very good case for the public knowing about these dodgy dinners going on.
What I DID say (as some other poster mentioned) was that reporting on the precise location of the meal while it was going on might have overstepped the boundary between the public’s right to know, and the private individual’s right to privacy. This is my opinion. You believe otherwise, and that is your prerogative. It is still, however, an opinion.
There is a lot of gray juridical space within the field – and some of that might be cleared up by the Mosley case ruling. We’ll have to wait for the ECHR judges’ written rulings to know for sure. Only future rulings will make it clear where the line is drawn. Until then, all we have is know-nothing amateur opinions (mine, and yours) and legal advice (again, mine, and yours).
[Daphne – The Mosley case, or haven’t you been listening, is completely different.]
Your rant about Maltese people’s gumption and general thinking skills is simply verbose sophistry, and a somewhat more oblique ad hominem than the sort you tend to fall back on.
I’m not sure what sort of ‘mindset’ I share with Astrid Farrugia, seeing as I disagree with much of what she says and writes. Presumably that would make me (us?) bipolar.
[Daphne – You, perhaps. I tend to be boringly consistent.]
I agree wholeheartedly with you when you write “So what we have here are Maltese adults with an accumulation of facts and information and very little idea of how to process them sensibly, rationally and logically”. Where we differ is in drawing our conclusions. You think it explains why half the population vote PL all their lives. I think it also explains why the other half have nailed their flags to the PN mast. I make no distinction between the two bands of fanatics – a mule is a mule is a mule.
[Daphne – Not so. Voting PN is the only intelligent choice, even now. On the other hand, you can drive a bus through the arguments of those who vote Labour.]
And, to be quite frank, until we (as a country) come to realise that partisan politics serve nobody but the politicians themselves, we deserve our ‘Mickey Mouse’ moniker.
I shall now take my leave of this blog. Your inability to mask your hostility towards anyone who disagrees with you is off-putting, as well as a little disappointing. To my mind, life is not as binary as you would like it to be. Enjoy preaching to the converted.
[Daphne – I don’t preach to the converted, which is why you’re here. And it’s interesting to see that I was right in having you marked down as one of those ‘I’m so superior, above partisan politics’ type of people. The pro-AD forums are littered with them, which is how I recognise the idiom. Don’t be too sniffy about partisan politics, because partisan politicians get to run the country so you might as well get involved.]
Who the hell is Astrid Farrugia?
Fanon, how long was your leave? Are you already browsing the blog again? What name are you going to use next Nonaf?
That was a favourite quote of Harold Wilson’s. He once told a woman ‘I can only give you the facts; I can’t give you the apparatus to deal with them.’
As if the magistrate needs to look at the code of ethics to supposedly know what is and what is not morally acceptable behaviour!
Too right.
As Lorraine Schembri Orland pointed out in an interview yesterday, when she graduated they did not need a code of ethics to know what acceptable behaviour was:
“Today this is governed by a Code of Ethics which is the benchmark for what should or should not be appropriate behaviour.”
And Magistrate Herrera still sees nothing wrong in partying with the parties to cases in her court.
See pages 12 to 20 here for women lawyers’ opinions on the private lives of magistrates and judges.
http://issuu.com/briangrech/docs/styleonsunday06
Ann Fenech put it well too on the same article, as did the others.
“but I have noticed that something happens in childhood which decimates Maltese people’s thinking skills ”
Id-duttrina tal-‘muzew’.
School + Maltese teachers + British textbooks + Gaza strip environment + duttrina.
haha.. Daphne Caruana Galiza call herself a gurnalist!!! omg…
How long did it take you to decide that it’s Daphne, and not Dafne ?
And here’s what another one of the interviewees said in the same feature;
“Whether or not judges or magistrates should be on Facebook, or which other social events they should attend, should, in my view, be something which no judge should need to have spelt out in any rule or code. If a judge or magistrate is every day passing judgement on other people’s lives, then they should ideally be suited to judge their own behaviour. The situation gets worrying when this is not the case.”
And yet we have a magistrate who not only needs to be told which social events she should or should not attend, but also that she should not organise certain events or host certain guests herself. And when this is pointed out to her, she runs squealing to court trying to get a gagging order placed on her critics.
What should we expect from a liar who runs off telling more lies?
Issa x’se taghmel Jeffrey, gejja xi bikja ohra? Ghandu hajt ghal kenn bik il-PN.
Why are all the sittings ‘deferred’? Doesn’t the woman ever get anything done?
The deferrals aren’t strange. What is strange is the short lapse of time between one deferral and the next in some of the cases…
Joe Grima met Mike Buongiorno in 1986 the year the Americans bombed Libya and he remembers it quite well.
In 1987 Malta bombed the glorious Malta Labour Party and Joe Grima seems to forget.
Memory chip gone bad?
@ Fanon
Politics by necessity are partisan, like it or not. You clearly don’t like what Daphne writes because, you said it yourself, she writes pro NP. You don’t like her because you espouse another brand of politics be they AD or LP. So that makes you a partisan of either of the two.
“I shall now take my leave of this blog”. No need to ask for a reason. You either ran out of sensible arguments or you have made good use of the shovel handed to you by the AD or PL and dug so deep that you cannot climb out of the hole you dug.
Isma veru li dan il-blog tnehha mill-ufficini tal-gvern? jekk veru, allura il-prim imhallef, il-president, il-prim ministru u kull min hu involut mhux qed ikun jaf x’hinu jinghad hawn allura ghandhom skuza biex jibqaw siekta, jaqaw dawn ghandhom xi etika wkoll bejniethom biex ma jitkellmu xejn fuq xulxin ghax intzertaw li kolla huma avukati, mela l-ahwa allura ahna qed inpaccpcu ghalxejn.
X’intkomm tistennew biex ticcaqalqu? Fuq artiklu 19 bizzejjed tistaw tiehdu azzjoni.
U din ghal magistrat jew il-kummisarju, tistaw tghiduli jekk il-kaz tal-pulizija Patrick Spiteri hux sine die, u ghaliex, jekk mhux, ma thaffux, meta ser jerga jkun hemm seduta fuqu?
L-aqwa li morna niftahru mal-barranin li ir-rata tal-kriminalita naqset hawn Malta. Morna nghidulhom bil-korruzjoni li hemm fil-qorti bil-barka ta’ kullhadd.
Pippo, I suppose they have internet at home. Besides, some of them do not need this blog to know what is going on.
Those in the legal profession must be the ones most entertained by what is being revealed on this site.