When it comes to crime and sinister events, Malta is pretty boring isn’t it? We only get one or two intriguing cases a year, if that, so when we have cases such as the ongoing saga of Erin Tanti and Lisa Maria Zahra, we can’t expect the press and the people not to go to town with it.

The same happened a couple of years ago with the New Year’s Day mystery murder of Anglu Xuereb’s son-in-law; the same happened with the Mosta killer, and the same will happen if and when something of the sort occurs again.

We’re lucky not to have so many of these cases to dwell upon, but at the same time, when they do, the public and the media, are bound to squeeze the life out of them.

Some argue that the media shouldn’t be reporting every detail of Tanti’s case, and that we should let the justice system play out, but truth is that the less the media report on the actual case details that come out in court, the more people will speculate and make up their own version of the facts.

In addition, not only is it human nature to want to know what happened, it is actually our right to be kept in the know of what goes on in our court rooms. In other words, fair and accurate reporting of every little detail of a court case is not snooping or sensationalism; it’s an essential and integral part of a democratic system.

Many of us forget that the Law Courts are there to act on behalf of ordinary people and that court cases are open to the public (with a few exceptions). This is important not only for the judiciary and the justice system to remain as transparent as possible but also that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

Court reporters are also there on behalf of the people. They also happen to be members of the public themselves, in fact, while court reporters might sit in a special place in a courtroom, there is, or rather should be absolutely no difference between a court reporter and any other member of the public who chooses to follow a court case in person.

Of course, court reporters worth their salt, purposely and craftily pick and choose particular cases to follow. They go for the cases they think would make strong news stories, but primarily they are also our eyes and ears. By reporting what goes on in courtrooms, they help us decide if justice is being carried out and served fairly.

But where should the line be drawn? When does it become too much? And what if a court journalist’s report turns out to be untrue?

This is a conundrum I’ve long struggled with because, while court reporters have a right to report on cases they deem to be in the public interest, they could very easily sway public opinion and have the accused tried and sentenced long before the court has come to a decision.

But if a court correspondent reports objectively and faithfully, even if the accusations and testimony ultimately turn out to be untrue, that reporter is safeguarded by privilege, which means that the accused, even if found not guilty, cannot sue the reporter for libel or defamation.

In other words, if a journalist reports what the prosecuting lawyer says and also all that the prosecution witnesses say about the accused, even if the accused is eventually found not guilty and the testimony untrue, and even if the report is clearly damaging to the accused’s reputation, the accused cannot sue the prosecution lawyer, nor the witnesses, and neither the court reporter for libel.

In essence, so long as reports are fair, accurate and not malicious, court reporters are protected by privilege. My own interpretation of this however is that a report must give both sides of the story, and is not twisted to mean something else than it’s meant to, within reason of interpretation of course.

So brace yourselves for more nitty-gritty about the Erin Tanti case, because court reporters do not only have the right to report the juicy details, but now that the wheels have started to turn in that direction, they are actually obliged to do so to the very end, and report both sides of the story.