There's been something of a flurry of protest at the way the prosecuting copper in the alleged bribery case involving a former Chairman of Enemalta is trying to get the court to order the editor of a newspaper to reveal the source of emails (and other documents?) that have been presented in evidence.
 
The accused is Tancred Tabone and the editor in Saviour Balzan.

Far be it from me to enter into the merits of Mr Tabone's case, that's for the Court to deliberate and decide upon, but the matter of Mr Balzan having, or not having, to give evidence, is an interesting one for anyone involved in the media.

The Press Act, so beloved (not much) of freedom-lovers everywhere, provides for certain journalistic privileges, amongst which is the concept of protection of sources. An editor or writer cannot be obliged, except in very specific circumstances relating to national security and such, and even then the Court has to make a value judgement, to reveal the source of any information published under his or her responsibility.

It's Section 46 of the Act to which I refer, if you can be bothered to  look it up. It would seem, then, that the Prosecuting Officer is over-stepping his remit by asking Mr Balzan to spill the beans.

But is he, actually?

I might be wrong, though I don't think so, but Mr Balzan brought the documents in question, mainly if not all, print-outs of emails, to light while testifying in the proceedings. If memory serves, he had also published them previously in his newspaper, but I have this nagging doubt whether, in these circumstances, he's allowed at this stage, having put the stuff into the Court's record (and not as a copy of the newspaper, which would stand alone, but as part of his testimony) to come over all bashful and plead journalistic freedom.

Let me put it another way: had Mr Balzan been summoned and asked to confirm that a copy of the newspaper that was being shown to the Court was a true copy of what he had edited (which would be a stupid question, frankly) then he would have been well within his rights, and  deserving of all our support, had he restricted himself to confirming, for what it's worth, that the copy was a true one and then refusing to comment further.

I don't see that he would have been obliged to produce the emails on which the published story was based, on the grounds that the emails,  their writer(s) and all the background stuff that was used to produce the article, are "sources" which a journalist is entitled, under the law, to keep "in pectorem", as the clerics put it.

Mr Balzan, from what I read of the Court reports, went further and chose, as he was entitled to choose, to produce the emails etc for the Court.

 This, it seems, prompted the Prosecuting Officer to press for evidence as to their provenance. One generally does this in order to establish how credible documents, whatever they may be, are: it's perfectly simple for any Tom, Dick or Harry to cobble together an "email" saying that I am a bunny-botherer and should be prosecuted to the full limits of the law, but the document in question has to be verified.

Perhaps it's not so clear, after all, that Mr Balzan shouldn't be forthcoming with the information, because what he's being asked about  is not a publication produced in the context of his role as an editor (S. 46) but about documents produced by him as a witness, testifying in Court.

It's a fine point of law, and it will be interesting to see how it's decided. It will certainly serve as guidance as to the extent to which journalists should take the stand to testify, lest they be told they have to put meat on the bones of their testimony.