Political spouses score a point for their right to privacy

A magistrate has declared that the spouse of a minister should not be treated the same way as a politician and with the same 'fastidious scrutiny'

A private affair: Patrick Dalli (centre) can expect a higher degree of privacy than his politician wife Helena (right), although the same cannot be said of the Prime Minister’s spouse, Michelle Muscat, (left) who uses her public persona for philantropic purposes
A private affair: Patrick Dalli (centre) can expect a higher degree of privacy than his politician wife Helena (right), although the same cannot be said of the Prime Minister’s spouse, Michelle Muscat, (left) who uses her public persona for philantropic purposes

A court decision in a defamation case against The Times of Malta has suggested that private individuals could enjoy protection from the prying eyes of the media – unless they have willingly submitted themselves to the public arena.

The decision was handed down by Magistrate Francesco Depasquale in the defamation case opened by Labour minister Helena Dalli and her husband Patrick, in a complaint on reports that they had carried out irregular works on a property they were about to sell to a third party through their company Pada Builders.

The court declared that the newspaper was incorrect in its reporting, because it ignored declarations by buyer Jason Desira early on in the saga, that he was carrying out repair works after having been granted permission to do so, following a promise-of-sale agreement.

But Magistrate Depasquale went further to declare that private persons cannot be subject to scrutiny unless they have entered the public arena “by way of involvement in matters that are in themselves public.”

The reasons for the magistrate’s observation do not appear fundamental in the reason he found The Times and its former journalist, Caroline Muscat, guilty of defamation, namely for persisting in an incorrect rendition of the facts.

Depasquale, however, said that throughout the course of the Times’s reports, Patrick Dalli had suffered the refusal of a planning permit on the Zejtun property ostensibly – always by Dalli’s own claim to the planning appeals tribunal – because his case was sullied by media exposure. The appeals tribunal overturned the refusal, without going into the merits of the alleged media effect.

To this, Depasquale chimed in with a strong view on the privacy of spouses of PEPs (politically exposed persons): “The spouse of a government minister does not get to be treated the same way as a politician and with the same fastidious scrutiny – the fact that his wife chose this career cannot be treated as a condemnation for which his affairs be subjected to scrutiny and exposed in public… the courts must protect private citizens whose only ‘guilt’ is to be married to people in politics.”

Depasquale went further, calling time on the tactic of ‘guilt by association’:

“The court insists that private persons must be protected from excessive interference and baseless accusations, which attacks are uniquely intended at indirectly attacking their spouses in politics, and the courts must protect these private persons in a bid to ensure others can sacrifice their private life for political duty without fear of dragging their spouses and children in the harsh arena of politics.”

Depasquale set much store in his decision by criteria first laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in the Axel Springer case, which argued that even public figures and politicians who can expect lower levels of privacy, should still be protected from photos or commentaries with “the sole aim of satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership” or which do not contribute to a debate of general interest.

So, the Springer case continued, a rumoured marital difficulty of a politician or the financial difficulties of a famous singer (arguably part of the bread and butter for rags and quality papers the world over) were not deemed to be matters of general interest.

While the magistrate delivered a strong point on the tactic of journalists and bloggers to employ ‘guilt by association’ as a way of attacking politicians’ loved ones to undermine their personal harmony, his decision raises the question of where these spouses’ privacy oversteps the politician’s domain.

Helena Dalli was an equal opportunities minister at the time of the reports. Had she been planning minister, would have Patrick Dalli’s planning applications on the Zejtun home been more meritorious for journalistic scrutiny? If ministers employ family members and third parties to apply for permits to the PA on properties they own, are they not hiding their interests behind the ‘privacy’ of their non-public relatives?

And with spouses, children and even immediate relatives of politicians now considered to be PEPs under new European anti-money laundering rules, are not the financial affairs and holdings of an MP’s spouse a matter of public interest – arguably to ensure no MP abuses of his public influence for his family’s personal gain?

Keen muckrakers understand the thin red line between private and public. But sometimes, the most private of affairs can become a legal matter, and once inside a court of law, one of public record –one on which journalists enjoy legal privilege to report upon. Be warned: privacy only exists outside a public forum.