Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1538544
IN Malta almost all the news portals pro- vide live coverage of jury trials yet live broadcasting of these same trials are often dismissed as another 'Amerikanata'. How- ever, in procedural terms, the US has long been the pioneer of norms, which we today take for granted. The right to legal assistance at the pre-tri- al stage, the right to legal aid, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the letter of rights upon arrest, the privilege against self-incrimination, the abolition of infer- ences all find their roots in the US legal experience and today form the basis of our criminal legal system. In 2022, when interviewed, Justice Minis- ter Jonathan Attard stated that "Malta is a small country which cannot be compared to bigger states" and insisted that "more studies and research is needed before pro- posals on broadcasting court hearings can be considered." His words reflect a broader European hesitancy towards televised live broadcast- ing; jury trials across Europe are generally not televised. From research conducted by the authors it appears the European Court of Human Rights has not yet had the op- portunity address this phenomenon. Could this due to widespread resistance? The Council of Europe addressed the is- sue of media coverage in criminal proceed- ings back in 2003, when the Committee of Ministers of the Member States outlined 18 principles concerning the provision of information through media in relation to criminal proceedings. The committee stressed "the importance of media reporting in informing the pub- lic on criminal proceedings, making the deterrent function of criminal law visible, as well as ensuring public scrutiny of the functioning of the criminal justice system." These principles, inter alia, guarantee ac- cess for journalists, provide protection for vulnerable individuals, and prohibit the commercial exploitation of proceedings. From these principles, there is no express prohibition on the televising of trials. The US Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Chandler v Florida (1981) rea- soned that televised trials and fair trails are not inher- ently incompatible. This was a contentious case dealing with police officers accused of theft whose trial was partially televised un- der an experimental Florida programme. The court stated: "A case attracts a high level of public attention because of its in- trinsic interest to the public and the man- ner of reporting the event. The risk of juror prejudice is present in any publication of a trial, but the appropriate safeguard against such prejudice is the defendant's right to demonstrate that the media's coverage of his case—be it printed or broadcast—com- promised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly." This judgment effectively equated print- ed coverage, such as today's live blogs, with broadcast media. Today it appears that 47 out of the 50 US states allow some form of televised trial coverage. It is essential to distinguish between tele- vised trials and 'trials by media'. The latter refers to the process whereby media out- lets shape public opinion and potentially prejudice legal outcomes, often outside the courtroom before proceedings even begin. Televising actual courtroom proceedings, subject to legal safeguards and judicial con- trol is not the same thing. News portals in Malta are already cov- ering juries through real-time blogs. Tel- evising the trial would provide a visual representation to complement the written accounts and could serve as an audit of these blogs. It is common for colleagues to comment on their experiences of having read articles about a trial they themselves participated in, wondering whether the journalist had attended the same courtroom. A televised trial, especially if broadcast in full or via a dedicated legal channel, offers the public a more faithful account of the proceedings. The legal maxim that 'justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done' has never been more relevant. In an age of misinformation and growing suspicion toward institutions, bringing the public closer to courtroom proceedings can only strengthen trust in the rule of law. After all, court proceedings are inherently public, and this openness is essential to maintain- ing confidence in the legal system. So, why should the public be denied the opportunity to witness these trials on screens, instead of having to travel physi- cally to Valletta? With appropriate safe- guards, key participants in the judicial pro- cess can be protected, and the courts can still retain discretion over sensitive cases. Beyond public engagement, televised trials would be an invaluable resource for legal education, for both students and law- yers alike. Many speak of the legendary oratory skills of the late Guido de Marco, yet these performances today only live in the memory of those who witnessed them. There is no archive, no record to study. Were his trials televised, they would today be serving as a bastion of legal scholarship. It is noteworthy that the authors of this ar- ticle have been persistently requesting any record of De Marco's performances in tri- als by jury to no avail. Televised proceedings would also elevate professional standards, lawyers would be far more cautious, better prepared and subject to public scrutiny. Some may argue that it may turn court into a circus, but rather it would reward expertise and good perfor- mances. This could also help both accused persons and victims choose the best rep- resentation, effectively supporting their right to the most appropriate legal counsel. A televised trial system would also in- crease civic awareness. Much like Parlia- ment TV allows citizens to follow political debates, a Court TV channel could enhance transpar- ency and public understanding of judicial proceedings. Citizens would gain a better understanding of jury service, trial proce- dure, and the responsibilities of judges and lawyers alike. It would also help counteract the toxic online commentary that some- times follows judgments, especially when the public only has partial or inaccurate information. Of course, any such reform must be well-regulated, and preceded by broad consultation. The public, judiciary, legal profession, and media must all have a say. This is not about showmanship. It is about transparency, education, accountability, open access to justice and trust. A televised jury trial is not an 'Amerika- nata', it is a modernisation of our trial sys- tem. 7 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 17 AUGUST 2025 OPINION Beyond public engagement, televised trials would be an invaluable resource for legal education, for both students and lawyers alike. The case for televised jury trials in Malta is not an another 'Amerikanata' A televised trial, especially if broadcast in full or via a dedicated legal channel, offers the public a more faithful account of the proceedings Matthew Xuereb and Thomas Sciberras Herrera Xuereb is a lawyer and Sciberras Herrera a paralegal