The lawyer defending Alfred Degiorgio, charged with Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, is doing his duty when he insists his client must be assured a fair trial. However, he must also acknowledge and accept that the media has a specific role to play within society, including with regard to the criminal justice system.

Lawyer William Cuschieri argues that, unless remedial action is taken, including postponing the trial, Degiorgio would suffer irremediable prejudice in terms of his presumption of innocence as a result of non-stop media coverage.

This media bombardment, defence counsel told the constitutional court, included extensive reporting featuring mugshots of the Degiorgio brothers and headings with the words like “hitmen”, “cold-blooded murderers” and “criminals”.

As the courts have often pointed out, the press should be allowed to do its work and nobody needs to tell it how it should be done. So, the lawyer’s views on how the media should have gone about it is really immaterial, even if he has every right to voice his opinion.

However, no lawyer can expect the media to treat a top-profile criminal case involving the heinous murder of a journalist like any other petty court case.

If the punishment must fit the crime so too would media coverage. Of course, the focus should remain on the crime itself not whether an accused person is guilty or not, which only “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” can decide.

In a research paper on ‘trial by the media’ that appeared on an international journal dealing with law management and humanities, the two co-authors described a responsible press as being “the handmaiden of effective judicial administration”.

The European Court of Human Rights has, along the years, expressed itself very clearly about media coverage of criminal proceedings. In so doing, it no doubt attributed due weight to the right of freedom of expression but also to what the human rights convention says about a fair trial within a reasonable time and the presumption of innocence.

And the right to freedom of expression does not only apply to instances where the information disseminated is inoffensive but also where it can offend, shock or disturb.

Also, this foremost bulwark of human rights notes that, although the courts determine guilt or innocence, one cannot exclude prior or contemporaneous discussion of the subject matter of criminal trials elsewhere, including in the media and by the public.

Indeed, it argues that not only reporting but also commenting on court proceedings is in line with the convention.

Since the administration of justice serves the interests of the people at large, the cooperation of an enlightened public is required, the European court stresses. Hence, the need for adequate media coverage.

All along, the media has been very responsible in the way it covered this saga and where it erred or was about to err, its attention was soon attracted by the judiciary.

The essential role of the press in criminal proceedings also emerges from the fact that George Degiorgio has now accepted to speak to Reuters about his involvement in the murder. Was this the same ‘media’ the lawyers are complaining about?

As the fourth estate and society’s watchdog, the press is not interested in nailing anybody but only ensuring that justice is done and that the rule of law prevails.

It will continue to focus its attention on the proceedings to ensure they remain in line with the law, thus avoiding any nasty surprises later.