I am directed to refer to the article 'Judge alludes to personal case in court judgment' (The Sunday Times, January 27). The reporter refers to a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court presided over by Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco on January 22 in the civil case instituted by Maria Dolores Debono against the Attorney General.

It was reported that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco "referred" to his personal issue while handing down the judgment.

One of the aspects dealt with in the judgment was confidentiality and secrecy before the Commission for the Administration of Justice. The relevant part of the judgment read:

Referring to the procedures adopted by the Commission, the Court noted that:

"The Attorney General insisted that from the moment a complaint is filed, all proceedings are held in camera and normally the report is read in camera. The Attorney General insisted that everything is confidential. Apart from the fact that the Court is rather perplexed as to how the Attorney General is following this line of reasoning knowing that the Commission sometimes issued press releases regarding cases being heard before it, this Court cannot take into consideration procedures before the Commission when by their own very nature, such procedures cannot form part of any evidence indicating whether there exists any violation of fundamental rights...).

The wording of the judgment clearly indicated that at no stage did Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco refer to his personal case. It is thus misleading to state that the Court was making reference to any personal issue it may have while delivering its judgment.

While understanding that the public has a right to be informed of decisions being taken by the Courts of Malta, the public also has a right to be informed correctly of such decisions, without any allusions or inferences drawn up by persons drafting the report included in such reportage.

It is augured that these clarifications would be taken up by the people concerned and such incidents avoided.

Editorial note: The article stated that the judge indirectly referred to his personal case.