Though MPs still enjoy the right to file a complaint for ‘breach of privilege’, the House of Representatives cannot impose criminal sanctions such as jail terms or fines, even in those cases where there is prima facie evidence that MPs have been misreported or defamed by journalists.
Lawyers as well as MPs were contacted for their views about the situation. It was pointed out that according to the Privileges and Powers Ordinance, parliament can either admonish the journalist or else refer the case to the magistrates courts. In the latter case, journalists may face up to six months’ imprisonment.
The latest such incident was raised during Wednesday’s parliamentary sitting when Foreign Affairs Minister George Vella complained that some of his remarks about the media, which he had made earlier in his speech, had been misreported by The Malta Independent online. At one point Dr Vella was asked by the Speaker whether he intended to file a complaint for ‘breach of privilege’, but Dr Vella declined to go any further with his complaint.
In 1991 the European Court of Human Rights had given a landmark judgement in the case ‘Demicoli vs Malta’. The case had occurred in 1986 when the editor of the satirical newspaper ‘Mhux fl-interess tal-poplu’, was summoned by the House after a government MP claimed a breach of privilege following an article in the same newspaper.
Mr Demicoli was found guilty of breach of privilege and fined Lm250.
Subsequently Mr Demicoli took his case to the European Court of Human Rights – Dr Giovanni Bonello was his legal counsel – and won it. The ECHR ruled that parliamentary breach of privilege proceedings against a journalist or any other outsider to parliament are a violation of Article 6, which deals with the guarantee of a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. This meant that parliament could not try and at the same time convict somebody, but MPs had to take their case to the Law Courts like normal citizens. As a result of this ruling, the standing orders in parliament had to be amended.
The repercussions of this ruling went beyond Malta as all the parliamentary democracies within the Commonwealth followed suit and amended their standing orders.
Article 11 of the Privileges and Powers Ordinance states that where it appears prima facie to the Speaker that a person, whether an MP or not, has breached this ordinance the matter has to be referred to the Privileges Committee.
The committee has the powers to examine the evidence by summoning witnesses and experts and requesting documents or reports. At the end of this process the committee can either recommend that the Speaker admonishes the person involved or go a step further and recommend the Speaker “to order the police to bring the person who allegedly has committed such acts before the Court of Magistrates”. In the latter case any person convicted of such offences may face up to six months in prison and a fine of €1,164.69.
The most recent ruling involving ‘a breach of privilege’ goes back to 31 October 2011, when a Net TV crew was found guilty of filming Labour MP Joe Mizzi within the precincts of the Presidential Palace without authorisation. The case was then referred to the Committee of Privileges with the Speaker urging both sides to try and resolve the matter in a peaceful manner.
Though complaints for breach of privilege are not uncommon, following the amendments dictated by the ECHR landmark judgement of 1991, there were no instances in which House invoked the right to refer a case to the criminal court.
See parliamentary report in the below link
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-15/news/george-vella-clarifies-point-on-media-control-1604026368/