One TV’s plans to broadcast an interview with the mother of a murder victim still hang in the balance as the court weighs the public’s right to information against the right to a fair trial.

“It’s a tightrope,” observed Madam Justice Anna Felice as she started to hear  arguments by lawyers representing One Productions Limited and the presenter of the TV programme Awla, lawyer Luke Dalli on the one hand and those representing Justin Borg, the victim’s former partner, on the other.

The hearing followed a decision by the First Hall, Civil Court provisionally upholding a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction requested by Borg’s lawyers to stop the broadcast of an interview with Miriam Chetcuti whose daughter Chantelle Chetcuti was fatally stabbed outside a Zabbar club in February 2020.

Borg is awaiting trial for wilful homicide and has pleaded not guilty.

His lawyers are arguing that the airing of that interview with the victim’s mother would prejudice his right to a fair trial.

“Trial by the media before any court judgment is delivered should be avoided at all times. Care should be taken to avoid broadcasting repetitive footage that might prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial,” said lawyer Carlos Bugeja, citing subsidiary legislation under the Broadcasting Act.

He said the court decree temporarily upholding the application for an injunction was “crystal clear” and did not block the whole programme but only the interview with Chetcuti.

Although the name of the programme was a clever choice, cases were to be heard in court not at Awla, went on Bugeja.

“We do not want to shut up anyone, but the right to a fair hearing is more important than the right of the media to weigh in upon criminal trials and expressions of opinion.”

Such broadcasts were tailored to target an audience and generate profits, he went on.

“It’s entertainment at the end of the day,” he added, pointing out that the courts performed a different function, namely that of meting out justice.

Madam Justice Felice intervened, pointing out that the role of the media was not only to entertain but also to supply information.

Whilst dispelling any ill-intentions on the part of One TV, Borg’s lawyers stressed that they simply wanted to ensure that their client’s rights were not prejudiced.

“Can we have the guarantee that a future juror will hear testimony in an independent manner?”argued Bugeja, pointing out further that Miriam Chetcuti herself is a witness at the trial.

The defence lawyers, he said, could have opted for silence at this stage and then sought legal action on the very eve of the trial.

“But that’s not the serious way to go about it,” said Bugeja, making reference to a decree delivered in proceedings against Liam Debono while also awaiting trial over the attempted murder of police officer Simon Schembri.

In that decree the court had listed principles on the rights of the accused when confronted by broadcast cverage.

In Borg’s case there was still time to put a stop to it before the start of the trial and there was room for compromise,  said the lawyer.

“The programme can go ahead. We have no problem. But our only issue concerns the case of Justin Borg.”

Lawyer Matthew Paris, representing the station, said there were other procedures and remedies that ought to have been followed.

Also making reference to the case of Liam Debono, Paris pointed out that in fact on that occasion back in October 2018 Simon Schembri had raised a similar objection over an interview set to be broadcast on TV talk show Xarabank.

But Schembri’s lawyers had flagged claims of prejudice before the criminal courts and it was the Magistrates’ Court presiding over Debono’s case that had banned airing of the interview on the basis of a provision under the Criminal Code.

Borg’s lawyers could also have taken their grievances before the Broadcasting Authority, went on Paris.

Instead they had opted to go down the route of seeking a warrant of prohibitory injunction which was an exceptional remedy granted only when the right claimed by the applicant would otherwise be irretrievably lost.

In this case, the prejudice did not exist yet and therefore the warrant was to be revoked, argued the One Production’s lawyer.

“Homicides are a current theme and that’s why the production team deemed it fit for coverage. But nowhere will Justin Borg’s rights be breached.”

As for the 30-second promo, he said, this featured Chetcuti lamenting the death of her daughter.

“She has a right to do so. There can be no blanket ban preventing her from talking, ever….So this person’s daughter was killed. Now we don’t allow her to join the discussion?”  

Borg's lawyer countered that the only timely remedy in the circumstances was to go for an injunction.

As for the existence or otherwise of the claimed prejudice, Bugeja drew an analogy to a building that was about to collapse.

“We might argue that the building is fine. So we go ahead. Then what happens when the collapse takes place?….The consequence is prejudice. Let’s stop this prejudice.”

The court is expected to decree on the matter in chambers.

Lawyers Carlos Bugeja and Rene’ Darmanin represented Borg.

Lawyer Matthew Paris assisted Luke Dalli who was also present at the hearing, together with Ruth Micallef on behalf of One Productions Ltd.