A little lesson for Saviour 'sub judice' Balzan
The sub judice rule, which only existed in common law countries anyway, and not in post-independence Malta where it was self-imposed by editors, was exploded 30 – yes, 30 – years ago in The Sunday Times (London) thalidomide case.
In 1979, the European Court of Human Rights held that the media have not just the right but the duty to discuss matters of general public interest, notwithstanding that litigation is pending before the courts.
There are some lawyers who need to take this information on board, too, their education in certain legal matters being apparently somewhat deficient. So do all those columnists who waited until Noel Arrigo’s trial was concluded to laugh in print about his confessors and aborted trips to Lourdes, leaving me to crack jokes alone (not that I mind, of course).
Get a grip, people. Even without the 1979 ECHR ruling, it should be obvious that newspapers, television, internet sites and radio can’t divorce themselves from the major topics of discussion in bars, clubs, homes, streets, work-places and cafes.
All those columnists who waited until judgement was delivered in the Noel Arrigo case to say what they thought about it served their readers ill – and yes, they missed a trick.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Sorry if this is off topic but have a look: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091214/local/former-mps-criticise-treatment-of-joe-borg
Nice phone I might add.
Michael Bonnici had expected to be made Speaker of the House as if it was his birthright or a civil service promotion. No wonder Fenech Adami had RCC as his hatchet man. I think Gonzi should take a leaf out of Michael Corleone’s book and during a religious ceremony……
And now Franco Debono steps centre stage stamping his feet and throwing a tantrum. More snouts stepping up to the trough.
The sub judice thing is a lot of nonsense, unless there is what the Maltese call a ‘divjiet’ or specific ban on discussion of a particular case, and that is very rare.
But on the confessors issue, well they only spoke after Arrigo was found guilty at the end of the trial and so whoever wanted to comment on that could only do so then, including yourself.
[Daphne – Mine was, as the name of this blog says, a running commentary. I commented throughout the trial. You don’t seem to understand the system: the confessors and Lourdes comments were PART OF the trial – otherwise, what would have been the point?]
Sure you commented throughout the trial, I was speaking about the bit on the confessors, which you referred to “to laugh in print about his confessors”. They could only do that at the end because they spoke at the end, after Arrigo was found guilty.
Don’t you realise that ‘sub judice’ is just another excuse for our lawyers to indulge in their fetish of mispronounced Latin terms?
Hi Daphne,
Is this true?
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=6056
Is Franco Debono becoming ‘another’ pain in the ass?
[Daphne – No, it’s not. There was a routine vote, MPs on both sides of the house were away from Malta, and it was a ‘draw’. Franco Debono failed to turn up because he was asleep and had to be woken by people who turned up at his house for the purpose. The rest is just wishful thinking and the sort of ‘rumour as fact’ reporting we have come to expect from Maltastar. The Labour party even sent out a viral SMS yesterday, claiming that the prime minister was to call for a vote of confidence at 3pm. Yes, right.]
…. and the other one has bells on …..
Nice try, though.
How come that The Times says that he walked out before a vote was taken?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091216/local/absent-mp-ducks-under-the-radar
[Daphne – He actually walked in before it was taken. But that depends on where you’re standing.]
I am not a member of parliament so I stand outside ;-)
Imma biex naghmilha tal-avukat tax-xitan it-Times qalek dawn il-precizi kelmiet:
Nationalist Party backbencher Franco Debono, who on Monday left his party without a parliamentary majority when he walked out before a vote was taken, failed to come forward with an explanation yesterday as speculation grew over why he was absent at that crucial moment.
…..who on Monday left his party with a parliamentary majority when he walked out before……
See what I mean
Gonzi (together with his missus) went to see Franco Debono at home yesterday. Maybe he took him a new alarm clock a Christmas present.
[Daphne – I honestly cannot bear this kind of public vulgarity any longer. When Karl Stagno Navarra (and why is it essential for former nerds to get a new woman when they decide it’s time to become ‘hip’ and that they need a new life?) argued in favour of Franco Debono because he ‘represents his constituents’, I thought to myself: damn right. Pajjiz mimli hamalli – and lest you misconstrue that, it’s not a reference to the working-class. Hamallagni cuts right through Maltese society, as does the reverse of correct behaviour.]
Are you actually saying he did the right thing to walk out before a vote was taken last Monday? I can’t believe this!
Sorry to disappoint you Daphne but this is from MaltaToday’s front page:
“Malta told penalties for judges’ bribery ‘too low’
Council of Europe report: penalties for trading in influence for judges and public officers ‘too low’ and ‘limited’
James Debono
Penalties against officials found guilty of trading in influence – one of the charges brought against Chief Justice Noel Arrigo – must be increased, a report by the Council of Europe’s monitoring body on corruption has warned……”
[Daphne – That isn’t comment, my dear. It’s fact. There’s a difference.]