Safeguards on the use of the internet to protect the right of a fair trial

Abstract

One of the most notable features of recent years is the growth and use of information technologies. Traditional media for mass communication - newspapers, magazines, radio and free-to-air television - have been joined by satellite and cable television, electronic mail and the internet. The internet is part and parcel of our daily lives. Its use is of fundamental importance to our daily lives. Governments are constantly trying to find ways and means, to encourage its use. One is realizing that there is a relationship between the economic progress and the use of electronic devices. This study starts by examining the developments in the last two decades, particularly the introduction of the internet. In Chapter one, an analysis is made to outline the distinction between traditional publications and the internet. On a legal basis, these differ because the concepts of verification of information and right of reply are no longer applicable. This gives rise to new dilemmas, in seeking to control the extent to which, trial publicity affects the administration of justice. In particular, the influx of information from overseas gives rise to jurisdictional problems, as well as, to some extent, problems in identifying who may be liable for prejudicial material. One needs to examine what constitutes the sub judice rule, and whether this rule exists and when it is applicable. If it does, at what stage does it come into play? Who is bound by it? The sub judice rule is a particular branch of the broader law of contempt; a breach of the sub judice rule amounts to contempt of court, which empowers courts to punish summarily those whose conduct, is found to be in contempt. Chapter two analyses this rule and its development. To what extent, establishing and maintaining a biog, may be used to influence civil and criminal proceedings, through the influence of the judge/jury. In this regard, the cases against Dr. Noel Arrigo and Daphne Caruana Galizia would be considered. The present rule tries to strike a balance between two sets of principles: On the one hand, every person has a constitutional right to discuss any matter he pleases. On the other hand, the rights of parties in legal proceedings should not be prejudiced by discussion of their case in public. Is the sub judice rule a guarantee for a fair trail or, is it a form of restriction of freedom of expression? What are the limits to this fundamental human right of freedom of expression when a matter is sub judice? To what extent, does it violate the right of freedom of expression? Chapter three analyses the exceptions to the right of freedom of expression, as enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Maltese Constitution, so as to examine whether or not, the sub judice rule runs counter to this fundamental human right. In this chapter, one examines to what extent, this right (and its restrictions thereto) may be applied to the internet. In the case of blogs, one may paste any information, true or false, without any limit. Is it right? The notion of public interest is generally considered as an exception to the enjoyment of most fundamental human rights and freedoms. However, in the case of the sub judice rule, the idea of public interest can act as an exception to the limitations imposed by this rule.