Justice Minister Jonathan Attard is "not convinced" that cameras should be allowed into courtrooms, following a suggestion by his party colleague. 

Labour MP Glenn Bedingfield on Wednesday said elements of criminal cases should be broadcast and labeled current court reporting as "tedious". 

He noted that the UK had recently adapted its law to allow the media to film the last stage of prosecution when a judge sentences a convicted criminal.

However, Attard poured cold water on the idea of cameras being allowed inside the court. 

"I am not convinced," he said.

He argued that the right to a fair trial needs to be prioritised and that the Maltese context needs to be taken into account.

“Malta is a small country which cannot be compared to bigger states”, he said.

"More studies and research is needed before proposals on broadcasting court hearings can be considered,” he added.

Bedingfield brought the issue to parliament during a debate on the justice ministry's budget estimates.

“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?" he asked. 

No filming or photography is allowed in any court sitting in Malta. Video conferencing is only allowed for witnesses and parties to a specific case who can follow the case remotely. However, it is not broadcast.

Courtroom photography and broadcasting of sittings are restricted in many countries. In other court systems, such as in Italy, entire court processes are filmed. 

The UK has recently updated its law on broadcasting sittings. In England and Wales, the press can ask to film the very last stage of a criminal prosecution, when a judge sentences a convicted defendant.

“I am not suggesting filming all court sittings. I propose that only criminal cases are filmed and the media would only be allowed to film judges," Bedingfield had said.

Supporters of televising court hearings argue it will help the public understand how and why decisions are made and that it improves transparency.