Judiciary’s right of reply : a comparative analysis in relation to Malta

Abstract

This study sheds light on whether members of the judiciary ought to have a right of reply. The Constitution, together with Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights allows for any person to exercise their right of freedom of expression. However, said freedoms are restricted for public figures such as members of the judiciary, as it is assumed they should have a higher tolerance of criticism due to the nature of their function which is of public interest. The importance of enforcing the image of impartiality and independence of the Courts is essential in safeguarding the right to a fair trial. The question being addressed in this study is: when members of the judiciary are mentioned in the media for whatever reason, such as when the media feature articles about their judgments, their public office or their private life, should the judiciary have a right of reply, and if yes, to what extent? Should the members of the judiciary also have the right to freedom of expression, is the Maltese Constitution undermining this right, when restricting the members of the judiciary from expressing themselves with the media? An important distinction arose with respect to attacks made on members of the judiciary in their official capacity as opposed to those made on them in their personal capacity. This dissertation also delved into what foreign countries have adopted within their framework to regulate the information released by the media and to give an opportunity to members of the judiciary to share their perspective without breaching any rights or going against judicial codes of conduct. In conclusion, proposals to enhance or rectify existing legislation, as well as the introduction of possible solutions to bridge the gap between members of the judiciary, the media and the public at large, are presented.