A media unit within the newly created Agency for Court Services to serve as a communications channel between the press and the Law Courts is currently in the works.
After remarks made by Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi, wherein he said that journalists should wait till members of the judiciary retire before asking them questions, a justice ministry spokesperson told The Malta Independent on Sunday that a new media unit for the courts will be set up.
“We are intent on creating a media unit within the newly created Agency for Court Services, which will serve, for the first time ever, as a communications channel between the press and the Law Courts,” the spokesperson said.
“However, one must also note the chief justice’s comment that the judiciary has to abide by its Code of Ethics,” the spokesperson noted.
The Agency for Court Services was officially opened last August, with the aim of increasing administrative autonomy and further modernising services offered to the public in relation to the country’s courts.
In his address at the start of the judicial year, the chief justice singled out ‘persons’ – to exclude, he said, real journalists who “know what to ask and what not to ask” – who expect answers from judges and “even give them deadlines.”
It is easy to attack members of the judiciary because they cannot reply, he said. But journalists should understand that members of the judiciary are not politicians or chairs of parastatal entities, from whom replies are expected.
“We cannot answer most of the questions (journalists ask) not only because we are impeded from doing so by the Code of Ethics, but also because each word we say can lead to a recusal in some cases. Our obligation is to decide, not to abstain,” he said.
Contacted by his newsroom for his reaction to these comments, former Sunday Times of Malta editor Laurence Grech concurred that judges should not be asked for their opinion on matters which they may come across in their work.
“It depends on what the questions are – if [journalists] are going to ask for an opinion on matters likely to come up before them, I don’t think that they are expected to reply; in fact, they shouldn’t reply,” Grech said.
However, he does agree with setting up an office to handle questions or requests for clarification from the press, although he once again noted that approaching members of the judiciary directly is not the right procedure to follow.
Communications academic and well-known author Gorg Mallia also noted that while it was his firm belief that journalists should have near-absolute access to everything, in instances where ongoing cases are at stake the judge has every right not to comment on such details as it may prejudice the case at hand.
Mallia noted that, at the end of it all, every person is tied to the rules of their profession, noting that if a journalist asks a judge during a case about their opinion on the said case, it will no doubt prejudice it.
He noted that the journalists could possibly be given access to the judge for him or her to clarify certain details of the case, but he added that there had been instances where legal cases were brought down because a judge gave an opinion to a journalist which may have slightly diverged from that given in court. With this in mind, he said, it is understandable that there is a lack of willingness on the part of members of the judiciary in this regard.
“I believe that journalists should have near enough absolute access to anything which does not prejudice what is going on,” Mallia said.
“This is naturally something which can be abused,” he said before adding that the government was using this mantra when it came to the public inquiry into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia – which he did not agree with. “However, if the judge is directly related to the case, then it’s not right to approach the person from beforehand.”
