Changes to the law may be necessary after a court ruled that the Broadcasting Authority could not issue charges against a TV station and then decide on it.
The judging role should be totally independent from the authority
The “historical” judgement, handed down by Mr Justice Raymond Pace in the Civil Court, noted that the law allowed the Broadcasting Authority to act as both judge and prosecutor. This went against the principles of natural justice.
The Broadcasting Authority has appealed.
Mr Justice Pace delivered the judgement in a case filed by Smash Communications against the regulator.
In a press conference yesterday, lawyer Emmy Bezzina, for Smash, said the judgement was historical because it reaffirmed an important principle, that the same organisation could not act as judge and prosecutor.
He said the ruling set a legal precedent. It could lead various government organisations or authorities to revise their internal structures to ensure the principle was respected.
Smash said that on April 13, 2004, the broadcasting watchdog accused it of overrunning its advertising time in the programme Minibus. The station was fined €930 and given six days to pay the fine or contest the charge.
The station decided to contest and the case was appointed for April 20. During the sitting, Smash argued that the case was being decided by the regulator’s board, which included the CEO who had issued the charges.
The case was suspended pending the outcome of the court case filed by Smash. The station insisted that the CEO was part of the Broadcasting Authority and the two could not be seen as distinct entities.
The regulator argued that the broadcasting law distinguished between the roles of the CEO and the board. Although the CEO was a member of the board, he did not take part in deliberations and decisions.
Mr Justice Pace ruled that, although the regulator had the right to issue charges for breaching the law, it did not have the right to judge the case itself. As a result, the case against Minibus could not be heard by the Broadcasting Authority.
As for the remedy, the court ruled: “In this case there should be a legislative remedy... the Broadcasting Act must ensure there is a distinction between the two roles of regulator, who issued charges, and judge... The judging role should be totally independent from the authority so that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.”