The effects of the media on the merits of prospective criminal proceedings

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of the media on the merits of a prospective criminal case, and the potential impact and consequences of extensive news reporting. An in depth analysis is carried out on various aspects of the Maltese and International law and their respective legal principles. As crime is progressing, the media is increasing its inquisitiveness to report cases and subsequent legal proceedings, and became quite the ‘money making machine’ in the modern world. Whereas before the intention of news reporting was to give the general public insight on a particular case, the intention has shifted into one which attracts likes, comments, and shares on social media application such as Facebook, with the ultimate aim of going viral. The Right to a Fair Hearing is considered as one of the most important principles in the law; as it protects an individual accused of a crime to be judged before a partial and prudent court. However, is this right being exercised to its full potential when the media is enjoying unlimited control in the field of reporting? A self-regulatory system abided by the media is a system based on responsibility. But what is left when journalists are taken over by competition and greed? The result could be damaging on so many levels, including an individual already depicted as guilty before actually standing trial. This argument is in no way trying to minimalize the guilt of an offender, but rather to protect an innocent person who is facing false accusations by the press leading to severe repercussions. On contrary, one must also safeguard the right of freedom expression by the press, in the interest of the public. But can this right override the right of a suspect in suspicion of a crime? Or the right of an individual charged with a crime upon the commencement/ during of a trial? Is it possible to come up with a system which creates a fair equilibrium between the two rights? Should the media be limited as to what can be published? Should the jury be crossed examined better? What can be done to achieve to limit the obstruction of justice?