Maltese courts allow the public to attend most hearings freely, although many do not know this. It is perhaps one way of fulfilling the fundamental principle that justice should not just be done but also seen to be done.
Still, this access is limited to physical presence. As a result, justice is rarely witnessed in operation by members of the public. One result of this is that the justice system continues to be opaque and poorly understood.
Access to the courts would be enhanced tremendously if varying degrees of media access to transmit certain court cases were to be allowed. Two government MPs have divergent views on whether Malta should follow the example of the UK, Italy and the US in this matter.
MP Glenn Bedingfield, a journalist by training, has argued in parliament that “it is time to start a discussion about what sort of access the media should have in our courtrooms.
“How many times have you watched the news and, when a court report comes up, all you see is footage of empty courtrooms and corridors?”
Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, a lawyer with experience as a journalist, is “not convinced” by his colleague’s arguments. He insists that the right to a fair trial needs to be prioritised and that the Maltese context needs to be considered. Attard believes that “more studies and research is needed before proposals on broadcasting court hearings can be considered”.
There are arguments for and against giving television access to courtrooms. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to a “fair and public hearing”. Judgments are to be “pronounced publicly” but the press and public may be excluded from trials “in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society” as well as other scenarios where “publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”.
The proponents of electronic access to courtrooms believe that it opens the courts to public scrutiny and, thereby, promotes more accountability. They add that the public has a right to see justice done and the only proper way this can be accomplished is to allow them access to hearings through their TV sets or online.
Those who argue against the presence of TV cameras in courtrooms believe that televised justice leads to sound bites and sensationalism and edited highlights of a case lose the subtlety of legal arguments. Others fear that cameras pervert the trial process as juries become star-struck and lawyers grandstand. Moreover, victims and witnesses are intimidated and can be less safe as a result.
So, the jury on the benefits or drawbacks of televised court cases is still out. Meanwhile, the real issue that worries many is the efficiency of our law courts.
The slow progress in deciding cases has multiple causes. They include a lack of sufficient human and physical resources, outdated court practices, some members of the judiciary that do not seem to understand the importance of expediting justice and inadequate use of modern technology, including digitalisation, to speed up the legal process.
An efficient legal system is a fundamental necessity for a modern state that aims to attract foreign investment and ensure that its citizens perceive the law courts as an institution that metes out fair and transparent justice.
Like many other essential processes in the nation’s life, the legal process needs some radical reforms to better serve our society. Opening up our musty court rooms to the sunlight of public scrutiny could well serve to spur on the needed changes.