Justice Minister Owen Bonnici. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

The Justice Minister believes there is scope to discuss a mandatory ban on the names of suspected abusers of minors pending a conviction.

The minister was reacting to recent comments by Education Minister Evarist Bartolo who said that revealing the identity of an alleged abuser only once a case was decided would help ease the mind of educators.

He was speaking at a teachers’ union conference which reported that nine out of 10 educators avoided being alone with a student following recent cases of alleged abuse.

Mr Bartolo was referring to Scandinavian media law where people arraigned are not mentioned by name until sentence is handed down, a system he said he proposed in meetings with the justice and home affairs ministries.

Questioned by Times of Malta, the Justice Ministry said there was scope for a debate.

The reporting of criminal proceedings often gave rise to debates about the demarcation line between the right to be informed, the right to privacy and presumption of innocence, a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said.

According to article 517 of the Criminal Code, the court is empowered to ban publication of the name of the accused or to have proceedings behind closed doors until the proceedings are over. In cases involving sexual abuse or the corruption of minors, such orders are often issued when the defence requests them.

“Maltese law, therefore, already provides the means to prohibit publicity until a case is decided but it perhaps remains to be debated whether the imposition of a mandatory ban is called for on the basis of available evidence,” the spokeswoman said.

What media experts say:

Media law needs to be revised as it is too fragmented and Malta should consider adopting the Scandinavian model, according to Carmen Sammut (left).

However, she noted that while there was much to admire in the Scandinavian media model, some countries had self-regulatory systems rather than State regulation, where the media abided by professional codes of ethics. Malta, however, seemed to have abandoned aspirations to follow this path.

“Recent efforts to update and revise the media code of ethics stalled because they were difficult to enforce and the Institute of Journalists is almost dormant,” she said.

During discussions to update Maltese media ethics, some proposed delaying the publication of names but others felt this would diminish the strength of a good story. Many journalists resented withholding names unless all other organisations also agreed to do so, Dr Sammut added.

Moreover, social media made enforcing this principle through self-regulatory structures even more difficult. It was unlikely that bloggers would abide by the codes of ethics.

As a result, the applicability of the Scandinavian model should be considered, she added.

Fr Joe Borg (bottom left) feels that, unless there is an overriding public interest, identities should not be revealed until the accused is found guilty.

“In a country where an accused person is popularly considered guilty even after being pronounced innocent, the public mentioning of someone’s name at the stage of arraignment can have very negative effects on the individual and his family.

“Naming someone on arraignment should be the exception and not the rule,” he said, adding it was not easy to list the exceptions.

Names should, however, be published when the accused was in the public eye (not just politicians or public officials) or when the case was preceded by massive media publicity, he said.

“One can argue that naming people in such cases of genuine public interest can dispel suspicion that some are protected because of their positions...

“I think that, on balance, one should err on the side of caution. Unless there is an overriding public interest, people’s names should not be published except when they are found guilty or, if they wish, even when they are declared innocent,” Fr Borg said.