There was little uproar over the pictures so graphically depicted in the media last January, where one member of the Armed Forces of Malta could be seen striking an illegal immigrant who was being pinned to the ground by the boots of other military personnel. And even less when the judge's 97-page report into the incident was published by the government on Monday night.

Inconsistencies in the report abound, such as why was a solitary AFM member singled out for disciplinary measures when the judge states quite unequivocally that several of his colleagues had used excessive force too. As do the omissions: Who does the judge believe should take the blame for what happened? Just the one soldier?

Such is the nature of local society, that none of these issues, regrettably, is likely to cause many people to lose any sleep. But if they do not, the veiled and more open attacks on the independent press really should since the principles strike at the heart of every breakfast table.

The reporters that were present during these incidents saw, recorded and relayed the events that unfurled before them; in exactly the same way they deal with any other news item the local public has come to rely on. They even had photos and video footage to corroborate what they reported.

Yet, for some unknown reason, and a highly undesirable - not to say dangerous - one, Judge Franco Depasquale chose quite unnecessarily to take several diversions from the brief he was given and call into question the effect of the media before, during and after this incident.

He concluded that the media presence added steel to the protesting immigrants' resolve; that their reports had negative consequences on the behaviour of the detainees; and, in a sentence more reminiscent of a politician than a judge, he said the publication and broadcast of pictures cast Malta in a bad light in the eyes of the world - as if they were to blame for what they reported.

Even his words of praise for the media were measured. Though he accepted quite readily that the very same pictures led to the Prime Minister calling the inquiry into the incidents within hours, the judge would only go as far as saying the media are "useful" in society. Surely "vital" would have been a more appropriate term, which is how any right-minded person in a democratic country would describe the presence of an independent judiciary. After all, that is what a separation of powers is supposed to be about.

But perhaps the nuance was intentional. Not only did he question what the media said, but the judge also made an issue of the fact that the journalists refused, as is their legal right in this country, to reveal the identity of who told them the protest was in progress. Moreover, he went on to assume from this that the immigrants' protest was inspired by "outside" collaborators - totally ignoring the more plausible if mundane explanation that they were merely acting on a run-of-the-mill tip off.

If that assumption is unjustifiable, the public exposition that led him to it is utterly unacceptable. If the state has granted journalists legal right to immunity from prosecution if they refuse to disclose sources, no one - judges included - is entitled to infer from that any hypothetical fact in order to support a shaky theory. Otherwise there is no point in having the right at all. Are we to assume that the judge would also be in favour of making inferences from the silence of a suspect in countries where that right exists? That is the logical conclusion.

And it is difficult to see what bearing this fishing expedition into the identity and motives of the sources, or the journalists' knowledge of the events leading to the protest, was going to have on the inquiry. Whether the immigrants were stirred by outside forces; whether the protest was legal or not; whether they were passive, rowdy or violent; the point at issue remains the same: Did the armed forces use reasonable force in the circumstances? The rest is superfluous.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the journalists were present when engagement took place and that they not just had the unfettered right - but the duty - to report and take pictures of what they saw. Any other view does not belong in a report by an independent judge; let alone in a democracy.