The magistrates’ court has clearly stated that Times of Malta journalist Ivan Martin had rejected money offered to him during a meeting with two of Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers.

Magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras went to great lengths in her judgment to explain that her hands were tied. It’s our words, not hers.

The case as it unfolded during the compilation of evidence and in line with the charges against lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran and Charles Mercieca, she pointed out, involved active bribery. However, in her note laying down the terms on which the court must pass judgment, Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg spoke of passive bribery in the private sector.

Passive bribery, the magistrate pointed out, was an offence that could only have been committed by the journalist himself but, in this case, he had firmly turned down the offer.

By law, the police have four working days within which to inform the court they would like to appeal. The court would then send the records of the case to the attorney general who has the final say on whether to appeal or not.

That is the legal part of the case but there is also an ethical side. This is where the Chamber of Advocates and the committee for advocates and legal procurators within the Commission for the Administration of Justice come in.

The Chamber of Advocates was quick to refer the matter to the committee, whose proceedings are held behind closed doors. This contrasted sharply with what happened in the case of a magistrate who used disparaging remarks vis-à-vis two lawyers, when the chamber looked into the matter itself and even issued a public statement.

If kissing a cousin on the cheek “falls below the decorum expected of lawyers in a courtroom”, what does the chamber make of lawyers offering money to a journalist in the course of his work?

“Ivan Martin and Charles Joseph Mercieca met at the legal office of the accused on November 2, 2020, the meeting also attended by the accused Gianluca Caruana Curran who, at one point, offered some money to Ivan Martin,” the magistrate said.

She then added: “At this stage, the court feels it opportune to make a small parenthesis to observe that it results from the evidence produced that Ivan Martin refused any money offered to him and that he is not being accused of any such crime.”

The Chamber of Advocates is bound by its statute to safeguard and protect the dignity, honour and reputation of the profession of advocate as well as to promote and ensure adherence to high professional principles and rules of ethical behaviour by advocates.

An advocate will be in breach of the code of ethics and conduct if “he conducts himself abusively or negligently or in a manner repugnant to the decorum, dignity or honour of his profession, or in such manner as could seriously affect the trust conferred on him by his profession”.

The attorney general messed up big time, again, and should, therefore, assume full responsibility and step down.

It is a stark reality that when journalists publish information exposing corruption, crime and abuse of power they hardly find any protection from state entities. It is now also clear that when journalists are the victims of the kind of impunity identified in Daphne Caruana Galizia’s public inquiry, they are unlikely to find the legal protection they need.

Trying to bribe a journalist in a healthy democracy where all the institutions supposedly work and the rule of law prevails, is repulsive. Claiming ignorance or ‘mistakes’ as a way out is scandalous.