The notion of pre-trial prejudicial publicity is one that has not, as yet, garnered much support from the normally conservative court. Things could change as it seems that this forum is becoming somewhat more liberal, somewhat more concerned about political correctness – instead of concentrating on its core responsibility, being a positive application of the law in guaranteeing the preservation of constitutionally enshrined human rights and civil liberties of citizens falling within its remit.

The situation is dissimilar in common-law countries, as you correctly pointed out, particularly in the United States. In cases of certain notoriety,where the commission of a particular offence would have had a serious impact on the community within which it was committed and where news coverage would have been extant, an accused may, though only occaisonally, have a plea for a change of seat, succesfully entertained. Such was the case with the Simpson trial for example. It is also the case, that the judicial systems being different the accused is tried before a jury upon being charged. And usually, though not always, a person is charged within a relatively short period of time from committing the offence. The situation is somewhat different in Malta.

One could reasonably argue, of course, that within a small territory such as ours, the effect of prejudicial pre-trial publicity – effected in this case not only by the media!! – could deleteriously effect an accused’s right to a fair trial to amuch greater extent.

However, readers should consider the following:

1. Pre-trial pubblicity would presumably impinge upon those accused of having comitted offences of note and where a trial by jury would be an option and therefore an offence where the punishment on conviction would exceed ten years imprisonment.

2. The judicial system is such that a significant amount of time passes between when the accused is charged before a court of criminal inquiry and requested to answer to the general question, and when he is then arraigned before the Criminal Court before a jury (if he so elects). This is done purposely to allow what is known as the public hue and cry to die down sufficiently and for emotions to be placated by the passage of time and the confluence of life’s events. This allows then for a more objective and dispassionate assesment of the facts by your nine men and women of average intelligence – or average stupidity, depending on which side of the bar you happen to be looking at any given moment!!

3. The accused has a right to be tried before a jury of HIS peers. A change of seat, in our case, would have to mean-per force-a change of territory and that simply, legally, is just not possible.

Well we can always ask Francois-Marie Arouet (not the real one but the one that goes with that nick in this blog) as he thinks (at least Voltaire was a he, so I am assuming that this one is a male also) that everything in Malta is controlled by the blue-eyed boys.

So how can we have a power cut at such a convenient time?

It’s been know to happen at convenient times in the recent past, so it’s possible for it to happen again.

Imma meta bniedem bla principju bhal dak jaqbad ma xi hadd li assolutament ma ghamillu xejn, u jibqa iziku f’ kull artiklu u jfajjar bl-addocc, ghas-semplici raguni li m’ ghandux demmhu, dik hdura. U naf x’ qed nghid, imma ahjar ma niftahx kotba hawn ghax mhux il-lok.

The only persons who would need to be protected from the influence of the media in such a case would be a jury, who in the above would be sequestered for the duration of the trial.

There are no juries involved in a case such as DCG’s.

Just a magistrate ….. who is not supposed to be influenced by a TV show ….. suppost.

We citizens are barely being given our bread … don’t deprive us of the circus please !