‘Genuine mistake’ shows just how worryingly easy it is to dismiss the media

The judiciary is the third pillar of our democracy and an integral part of the system of checks and balances intended to safeguard human rights.

It is for this reason that the judiciary’s independence should always be safeguarded from political intrusion and undue influence from other non-state actors. Judges and magistrates must be able to dispense justice and interpret the law without fear or favour. They must also be given all the necessary tools to do so expeditiously and with full rigour.

But independence does not mean the judiciary is above reproach or criticism. This holds true for their behaviour inside and outside court, as well as judgments they hand down.

Independence should never be construed as a cocoon that isolates members of the judiciary from the rest of society and how its expectations and conception of justice are changing. Indeed, in a democracy, it is healthy that court judgments are scrutinised, debated and criticised because it is one way of creating positive influence on members of the judiciary in the manner they interpret the laws of the land or hand down punishment.

The interplay between independence and criticism is fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy. However, great care must be taken when criticism towards the judiciary comes from politicians, people in power and individuals who wield influence in society. Such actors must be mindful of the fact that what they say can influence how people perceive the justice system and so any criticism must be measured, respectful and avoid unwarranted personal attacks. Otherwise, criticism can be healthy and can lead to better judgments and greater efficiency in court processes.

It is within this context that the decision to bar media photographers and camerapersons from covering the opening of the court’s Forensic Year flew in the face of increased transparency society should be striving for.

The start of the Forensic Year is one of those rare occasions when the Chief Justice speaks in a semi-public forum and outlines the concerns and aspirations of the judiciary, and even metes out criticism towards other institutions. The speech is delivered in the presence of the Justice Minister, the Prime Minister, the President of the Republic, representatives of the Chamber of Advocates, lawyers, judges, magistrates and journalists.

But contrary to what happens normally, this year, media photographers were not allowed in for the special sitting. Only journalists were allowed to report on proceedings and the only photographers present were those of the Department of Information, the OPM and the Office of the President.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists was right to express regret at this decision that came unannounced and with no motivation. Indeed, it was the Court Services Agency that said the decision to prohibit photographers was taken by the Chief Justice.

In a statement later in the afternoon, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti apologised for what he described as “a genuine mistake” caused by “miscommunication”.

He insisted that it was not his intention to bar media photographers and camerapersons from covering the event and in the years, he has occupied the role never did he issue such a prohibition.

It is refreshing that the Chief Justice apologised for the mistake and we take his word for it that this was the fruit of miscommunication. It’s not very often that institutions get to apologise publicly for mistakes they do.

However, what is worrying is the apparent easy manner by which someone can decide that the media should not be present without in so much as someone seriously questioning such a decision.

It also goes to show that the court system – both the agency that runs the administration and the judiciary, which operates independently – lacks a serious communication channel with the outside world.

Now, we know the media can be a thorn in the side of institutions and politicians. But that is our job and we will not go away irrespective of how inconvenient some may find us to be.