I am disappointed with the outcome of my application for a rehearing regarding the personal safety intervention order (PSIO) issued against me on 7 November 2024 in my absence. Unfortunately, the magistrate did not grant my request for a rehearing.
Today’s hearing did not consider the merits of the initial cross PSIO applications but was strictly focused on whether exceptional circumstances justified my absence at the original hearing and if granting a rehearing would serve the interest of justice. The magistrate determined that my circumstances did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances and that a rehearing was not warranted.
It is important to clarify that this matter was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. Civil orders, including PSIOs, are subject to a significantly lower legal threshold compared to criminal matters and are therefore not difficult to obtain. The order issued on 7 November 2024 was issued in my absence, which formed the basis of my rehearing application.
While I am disappointed by today’s result, I respect the significant responsibility magistrates bear in making decisions based on the information available to them.
This experience has only strengthened my resolve to continue advocating for fairness, transparency, and the values that uphold genuine independent journalism.
J Scicluna
