In the space of three months, two magistrates stood firm in protecting journalists’ sources and, thus, defend freedom of the press, an essential ingredient in any thriving democracy.
The subject matter in the two cases varied considerably. One consisted of a comment about an “intimate embrace” between a minister and his communications coordinator and the other was a report on the findings of a magisterial inquiry into the death of a young worker at a furniture-making factory. The point at issue was, however, the same: the journalist’s duty to protect his/her sources.
In the first case, the minister wanted the blogger who made the comment about him to divulge her source.
Magistrate Francesco Depasquale rejected the request. In a decree in mid-March, he quoted what the European Court of Human Rights said about such matters: “Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom… Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected.”
The second attempt to gag the press, even if, admittedly, in an indirect way, was made by a company director and two relatives. They were evidently incensed by a report on The Sunday Times of Malta, which said that a magisterial inquiry into the death of a 17-year old employee concluded that the director and his two relatives should face criminal charges for involuntary homicide.
They filed an application asking the court to order the Police Commissioner to investigate how the information had reached the newspaper.
Magistrate Joseph Mifsud, who had conducted the inquiry, disagreed with them and decreed that in a democratic society nobody should expect an inquiring magistrate to tell the police to suppress journalists.
He added: “The inquiry magistrate will not order the police to investigate and find out who was the journalist’s source but would encourages the police to continue doing their work to protect society and arraign all those who it results to them committed the crime so justice may be done with the victims, society and the accused themselves who are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.”
Rather than wasting time finding out who had communicated correct information to the press, the police should proceed with court action against those indicated as possibly being answerable to what happened, the magistrate seemed to be saying. The fatality, it should be pointed out, took place more than a year ago and, notwithstanding the clear findings of the inquiring magistrate, nobody has been arraigned yet.
The confidentiality of sources is guaranteed by the Press Act. There are exceptions, when disclosure is necessary: national security, territorial integrity or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime or the protection of the interests of justice. The law itself feels it should point out “that the court shall not order such disclosure unless it is also satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the need for investigation by the court outweighs the need of the media to protect its sources, due regard being taken of the importance of the role of the media in a democratic society”.
The message is very clear. Or is it? Regrettably, some politicians and lawyers do not seem to care. That is why the protection of the courts is essential. The recent two decrees show the courts will back journalists doing their duty.