Is-soltu – qabduha minn sieqa

Over the years I have realised that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the words ‘in open court’ and all that they imply. Public trials are public precisely to guard against abuse, whether that might be abuse of the person in the dock or abuse of the system. Trials are held in open court. Even the simplest civil case is heard in open court. Anyone can just walk in and listen. And reporters are free to report the proceedings, unless ordered to do otherwise by an – abusive – blanket ban on the publication of any information about the proceedings. I don’t approve of bans, because I understand why trials should be heard in the open: if they are not, there may be abuse.

Take the trial of the priests who stood accused of abusing young boys in a care home, some years ago. The defence lawyer asked for, and received, a ban on the publication of any detail, and for the trial to be heard behind closed doors. The result is that to this day the public doesn’t even know whether that trial took place at all, still less its outcome. We don’t know whether justice has been done. For all we know, the priests in question may have evaded justice all together. We will never know what happened, because of the ban. That old chestnut, justice must not only be done, but seen to be done, is correct.

Now the Labour Party has said that there should be a ban on the publication of the names of those who stand accused of crimes. They seem oblivious to the fact that this ban goes against the law. They are free to do what they like with their own media, but they are not going to browbeat everyone else into doing the same. The law specifies only very exceptional circumstances in which a judge or magistrate may ban the publication of evidence or information about proceedings. It does that because the principle of trials being heard in open court is one enshrined in European democracy. Gone are the days when somebody could be whizzed off to a dark dungeon and sentenced to death in secret.

The Labour Party has taken advice that the names of persons being prosecuted in our courts should be published only at the conclusion of the case and then only if they are found guilty – unless they are public figures. This turns the ‘open court’ principle on its head, but Joseph Muscat has put it forward as something good. He lacks the intelligence to see that it is actually something bad. A ban may be desirable in theory for the individual, but that is short-term, closed-box thinking. It is disastrous for society as a whole. The fact that it is disastrous for society as a whole has long been established in Europe and more so in the United States. The perfect illustration of how bad it would be is the case of Pietru Pawl Busuttil. He was not a public figure. It was precisely because our law specifies that people must be prosecuted in the open, and that the media are free to report what goes on, down to every last detail, which saved him. The government was forced to abuse him under a glaring spotlight, and thus failed. Had the Labour Party’s current plans for a ban been in place, Muscat’s predecessors would have been able to abusively prosecute him behind closed doors, with the media having to defy a ban on reporting and face prosecution themselves for doing so. As I have said several times before, Joseph Muscat is not particularly bright and can’t see them coming at him, even if they look like a freight train.

News reporting has its own controls. Cases are not reported unless they are newsworthy. Hundreds of people are prosecuted every year, but we read about only a few, for reasons that make them of interest to the public: the person is a public figure, or he/she stands accused of something a little bit unusual, shocking or amusing.

It is just typical of the Labour Party not to understand that freedom of access to information about trials and prosecutions is a democratic right and a guarantee against abuse. Instead, the party is attempting to portray it as a form of abuse, turning a fundamental principle on its head. The true test of the inanity of Muscat’s proposal is, yes, the Pietru Pawl Busuttil case.

The Times, Monday, November 3, 2008
Names of accused ‘should not be published’

Names of people charged in court should only be published if they are found guilty or are public figures, according to proposals made by the Labour Party’s media ethics committee. The committee was set up by Joseph Muscat in June, shortly after he was elected MLP leader, and tasked with drawing up a series of recommendations. Its chairman Carmen Sammut said the committee’s aim was to present a practical document which would lead to more professionalism.

The commission studied the code of ethics published by the Institute of Journalists, as well as the laws and recommendations of the Broadcasting Authority.Contact was also made with individuals from media organisations to see what kind of code they follow but none was in a position to make this public.

Dr Sammut appealed for initiatives to enable journalists’ organisations to have more power and resources to enable better monitoring and self-regulation. The Labour leader called on the Broadcasting Authority to organise a national conference on media ethics in collaboration with the Institute of Journalists and the Journalists’ Committee.