Civil society activist Manuel Delia has called upon the court to reconsider its recent order banning all comments and publications outside court hearings related to Yorgen Fenech’s murder case.
The request was made by means of an application filed on Tuesday challenging the ban handed down last week by Madam Justice Edwina Grima who observed that there are “people who feel they may breach court orders with impunity.”
The judge ordered NEWZ.mt to pull down comments made by Delia on the same day that the judge issued a similar order in respect of an interview published by Lovin Malta with the Caruana Galizias' lawyer, Jason Azzopardi.
After observing that previous court orders had been “repeatedly ignored,” Judge Grima issued a complete ban on writings, whether printed or otherwise, declarations and discussions about the murder case and the defendant.
While declaring that he fully respected the court, Delia is now requesting the judge to reconsider her decision, a few weeks ahead of the annual protests marking the journalist’s assassination.
Delia said that he wanted to make sure that the protests could go ahead as usual and since the October 16 anniversary was a few weeks away, he requested the court to consider his request with urgency.
The applicant said he never meant to breach any court orders and had full respect for the court’s work.
He said he has never breached any such orders because those orders concerned information contained in police notes which he did not have access to.
With reference to Judge Grima’s latest order, Delia argued that the ban was “too wide and not necessary in a democracy.”
It also ran counter to Article 10 of the European Convention which provided for the right to freedom of expression.
The ban was based on Article 517 of the Criminal Code which banned writings, printed or otherwise, about the court case or the accused.
But in this case, the judge had also banned public declarations or discussions on the subject on the media or social media.
Such a ban went beyond the parameters of article 517, argued Delia.
It meant that “certain unequivocal facts” could not be discussed.
As for the alleged prejudice to the accused’s rights to a fair hearing and his presumption of innocence, Delia argued that such prejudice could only come about if statements were made by a public authority.
According to ECHR caselaw, even a “virulent press campaign” did not necessarily result in prejudicing the accused’s rights.
The court could not prevent a breach of the right to a fair hearing by placing an outright ban on any form of discussion related to the case which impacted our country’s history to such an extent, argued Delia.
Lawyers Eve Borg Costanzi and Matthew Cutajar signed the application.