The Chief Justice said today that the press should consider whether campaigns which he said were carried out to pressure decisions in certain criminal proceedings were in the best interest of justice.
Speaking at the opening of the Forensic Year, Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri acknowledged that a free press was a fundamental element in a democratic society.
The press had an important role even in the administration of justice because publicity was one of the basic elements to ensure a suitable judicial process.
On the other hand, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary ensured due process.
The demands of due process and the right and duty of the press to give information that was of public interest sometimes generated an element of tension between the press and the courts, he said.
“I believe, however, that both the courts and the press can serve the public interest according to their role.”
Mr Justice Camilleri said that certain reporting in recent times was of concern. While, until some time ago there existed an absolute convention that the press would not comment on pending cases, this rule had now lost its inflexibility even because the European Court of Human Rights had acknowledged that, at least in civil cases, the press was not precluded from commenting on pending cases that were in the public interest.
Recently, the Chief Justice said, there was another development.
The press, in more than one occasion, had committed itself to precise campaigns which were clearly aimed to pressure a decision in pending criminal proceedings.
Mr Justice Camilleri urged the press to consider if, when it did this it was really serving the public interest.
For if the court’s verdict corresponded with what the press expected, the people got the impression that the courts had given in to pressure and if it did not, accusations were made that the court had decided in a certain way so as not to appear to be giving in to the press.
In both cases, the credibility of the courts was undermined to the detriment of the people’s confidence in the institution, Mr Justice Camilleri said.
He invited those responsible for the free press to examine whether this was desirable and ask themselves if it was in the public interest.
He noted that members of the judiciary were not exempt from criticism said he did not want to discourage sober, objective and constructive criticism.
If the judiciary was not under continuous scrutiny, its prestige would be lowered and it would not seek to strengthen its efforts to do better, he said.