In a TV discussion programme dealing with the criminal justice system some years back, the mother of a convicted murderer tearfully offered to serve time instead of her son.
The mother of the victim had no such choice. But both their voices could be heard, thanks to the media.
Society will suffer if the media is in any way gagged. The fundamental right to freedom of expression will be stifled.
Such right is often taken for granted; however, red flags go up the moment some form of restraint becomes apparent.
The request made by the lawyers of a man awaiting trial for the murder of his former partner two years ago in Żabbar is one such instance.
They have already been successful in obtaining a temporary injunction to stop One TV from airing an interview with the victim’s mother. Such temporary injunctions are usually issued until the matter is debated in court and a final decision made.
Indeed, a decision by the judge handling the lawyers’ application is imminent. The court is being asked to strike a balance between the right of the accused to a fair trial and freedom of expression.
For their own reasons, the lawyers of the accused referred to the programme during which the interview will be carried as entertainment.
However, the wise judge quickly pointed out that the media also had the role – the duty, operators will duly stress – to supply information.
Both international and domestic courts have often stressed that the press has a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters in the public interest in a manner that is consistent with its obligations and responsibilities.
The European Court of Human Rights notes that matters that can give rise to “considerable controversy”, deal with an important social issue or involve a problem on which the public would want to be informed also fall within the public interest.
The murder of a woman is, no doubt, an important social issue, as a shocked country continues to discuss Pauline Dembska’s killing in the context of a wider debate on how state structures such as the police deal with such sensitive matters.
These and similar issues are constantly debated over the influential and easily accessible social media. Which makes an order stopping a TV station from screening an interview, the content of which could still be disseminated far and wide through, say, Facebook, discriminatory at best.
The court order sought by the lawyers of the man accused of the Żabbar murder could mean that, once a case goes before the court, the media would no longer be able to carry comments by the family of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Dembska’s parents, or those of an infant killed in a traffic accident, relatives of a policeman shot dead in the line of duty or of a person buried alive in a house collapse.
A house collapse is an analogy the lawyers seeking the injunction used to sustain their argument that ‘prevention is better than cure’.
Though accidents will always happen, experience has shown that houses usually collapse due to contributing factors, such as bad workmanship or negligence.
So, rather than taking extreme action and blocking the interview altogether, the court can use its decree to make the recommendations it deems fit to ensure the right balance is struck.
The “public watchdog”, as the European Court of Human Rights defined the press, must be allowed to both bite and bark, rather than be muzzled.