The film age classification board, which will soon replace the censorship board, should publish the criteria on which it bases decisions and also explain its conclusions online, according to the Ombudsman.
KRS Film Distributors last year complained about the operations of the Film and Stage Classification Board. Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino looked into it and issued his conclusions in a 17-page report.
He pointed out that, since the complaint was made, the Culture Ministry announced plans to change the law and set up a new film age classification system and board, thus solving several of the issues raised by KRS.
KRS complained that about 23 per cent of films reviewed were being given stricter ratings than in the UK and the process lacked transparency, particularly because the board’s decisions were not given in writing and the guidelines were not published.
According to the Ombudsman, even the (then) Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs recommended against publishing the guidelines.
Dr Said Pullicino said that even though the board was not bound by law to publish the guidelines, “the basic values of transparency, accountability and fair-decision making” suggested that a brief report be submitted with its decisions.
If the applicant contested the classification, the board should provide an additional report giving a detailed explanation.
The Ombudsman said the guidelines should also be published not only for a company like KRS but also for the public to understand the system better.
“Public authorities are expected to have a policy of openness and transparency in relation to what they do, how they do it and the results achieved.”
The Ombudsman added that the new film age classification board should be tailored on the system proposed for the Theatre Guidance Board, in that the law should indicate the expertise of the appointees.
“The authorities should ensure that the persons appointed broadly represent the Maltese community and that individuals of different ages are appointed,” the Ombudsman said, adding that there should also be gender balance and a member well versed in children’s issues
The new board should ideally also be given the necessary tools to carry out its functions properly, including premises to view films independently.
The Ombudsman did not agree with KRS that the board should be obliged to discuss its decisions with the applicants, particularly in a scenario where there was a separate and transparent appeals process. He noted that the government’s proposed legal notice to change the censorship regulations showed a “marked shift in policy”. The draft legal notice was published for a three-week consultation period that has now expired.
However, Dr Said Pullicino warned, classifying a film or theatre production by age through a board decision or self-assessment in no way exempted the exhibitor or producer from liability. The film could still be unacceptable from a criminal law point of view and could vilify religion, offend decency or morals, public order or commit obscene libel.
“(Age classification) will, however, provide not only a yardstick as to the suitability of a film or production for viewing by persons within a given age bracket but also a certificate, and, in a way, a first line of defence, to exhibitors that they conform to existing legislation,” the Ombudsman said.