In his speech at the formal opening of the legal year last Tuesday, the Chief Justice decried journalists who write to his office with queries.

Although it is understandable that the Chief Justice cannot answer questions that may be prejudicial to active or potential court cases, it is worth re-emphasizing that media interest or scrutiny of the organisation and workings of the judiciary is legitimate and necessary in a democracy.

Media scrutiny is underpinned by the role of courts in democratic countries: the necessity of justice being transparent and accessible. Yet, one of the anachronisms of Malta’s courts is that they have no media outreach in any form, in contrast to most other western countries. The courts have no media office that journalists can go to with questions. The courts’ website is anything but user-friendly.

Some information on the judiciary and organisation of the courts is scattered in different websites. Civil judgments are published online on the eCourts website but anyone doing research into case law would not make much headway unless he or she has some prior knowledge of the workings of the court or assignment of work among different judicial offices.  

Websites of many other national courts are easy to explore and research. They also put up webcasts – even live streamings – of hearings and delivery of judgments.

This serves to improve the performance and transparency of the courts, as well as demystify the judiciary in the public eye. 

A media unit would build bridges of understanding between the public and the courts, and enhance the higher courts’ role in upholding the Constitutional order.

It would handle media queries, proactively inform on structural improvements and performance indicators, and even issue press releases to explain seminal judgments in plain language. 

A case in point would be the judicial appointments case currently making its way through the constitutional courts. The Chief Justice specifically said he would not be answering any questions about it in the context of the recusal trap – that any answer that could be construed as implicit opinion could trigger calls for his recusal if the case goes before his court – and this demonstrates why a media office is indispensable.

It should not be the role of the Chief Justice to answer questions from journalists but the media cannot be faulted for asking questions to the Chief Justice in the absence of other channels.

In this sense we urge the Chief Justice to work towards setting up a media office, not take issue with journalists who – in a spirit of journalistic fairness and objectivity – go to him for lack of other choices with questions about such matters as the organisation of the court, accountability issues, and so on. The accountability of the judiciary requires special consideration. As the Chief Justice rightly pointed out, the judiciary is not infallible – and that is precisely why any disciplinary measures imposed on errant judiciary should be made public.

It is unacceptable that the organ tasked with handling errant judiciary and improving the administration of justice, the Commission for the Administration of Justice, operates in secrecy under law.

Information about the operations of the Commission and its committees, as well as outcome of its investigations, is essential to strengthen public trust in the judiciary and to educate people on the proprieties of judicial power and discretion.

Let’s not forget that as Lord Justice Devlin famously pointed out, the arbitrary use of judicial discretion is “the first form of tyranny”.  

People’s right to be informed has been affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights and we shall not shirk from upholding our readers’ right to be informed.