A court has turned down a request by Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers seeking action for contempt against a Times of Malta journalist who wrote how a local producer allegedly turned to the businessman for help in the run-up to the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest.

But the court stressed there was to be no publication of data from the phone of the man charged with complicity in Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder and that any such publication would amount to contempt of court. 

The request concerned a story published on May 30, featuring well-known producer Anton Attard who allegedly sought to manipulate betting odds in such way as to boost the odds for Malta’s contestant. 

The story sparked a reaction by Fenech’s lawyers who, one week later, filed an application before the magistrate presiding over the compilation of evidence against the businessman. 

They sought action against the author of that story, Jacob Borg, for allegedly breaching a court order which had banned publication of all data retrieved from Fenech’s mobile phone.

While reiterating and stressing that ban, Magistrate Rachel Montebello observed that this particular case did not pose any immediate harm to the interests at play and therefore rejected the applicant’s request.

The ban issued by the same court, in an open sitting on November 30, 2020, was intended to safeguard the integrity of the records and evidence forming part of the criminal proceedings.

Above all, it was meant to safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused and also served the interests of justice.

“It is certainly not the court’s duty to safeguard the interest of whoever breaches its orders… under the pretext of the right of freedom of expression,” Magistrate Montebello decreed. 

On the other hand, the court was to ensure that the rights of the accused were not prejudiced and that orders issued for the best administration of justice were respected. 

Publishing material that formed part of criminal proceedings and subject to a court ban, "was not investigative journalism and nor could it be justified in terms of freedom of expression".

That right was also subject to restrictions in the public interest, the court pointed out. 

In this particular case there was no element of public interest in the messages exchanged between Fenech and Attard and the story did not pose any immediate harm [ħsara impellenti] to the interests at play, the magistrate declared, concluding that no action was to be ordered against the journalist.