It is local lore. If a Maltese goes to Gozo and asks for direction, or how to find a person, the community will rarely help. They become suspicious and either tell you that they do not know the person, or that they are not from that area and they cannot help you.

Crimes, unless they are committed in the heat of the moment and before witnesses, are also notoriously difficult to solve as the whole island goes into stonewall mode.

Malta can sometimes be the same, in terms of extracting information from people in small and rural communities. But things have become more open over time.

There has also been a very noticeable shift, in the past 10 years or so, for more openness and transparency in the courts of law. But there always exists the proviso of a ban on publication of names in certain cases – as well as the option for some to be heard behind closed doors.

Let us tackle both – one at a time. In the first instance, the court normally issues a ban on the publication of a name if the accused can lead to the identification of the victims in particularly sensitive cases. These normally relate to crimes of a sexual nature, but there can also be other factors that could lead a magistrate or judge to order restrictions for the media.

The second option – for a case to be held behind closed doors – is usually when very sensitive and personal evidence is given from the witness stand. The court might rule that the details of the testimony (particularly by victims) are not in the public interest. The court can also temporarily clear the court room (tisgombra l-awla, in courtspeak) for particular testimony and then allow people back in to follow proceedings. Sometimes, it is also done if the witness might feel threatened (and hence the limited use of video conferencing).

And this leads us to question the decision of the courts in yesterday’s arraignment hearing of a priest who was accused of sexually abusing minors. Journalists there were baffled at the remarkable speed with which the courts upheld a request by the defence to have a ban on the details of the case. Normally, a magistrate would weigh up the options and ask for an explanation as to why the case should be heard behind closed doors. But, as things turned out, the defence made that request citing the case being a ‘sensitive’ one.

In a matter of seconds, the court upheld the request and ordered everyone out of the room. But here is the crux of the matter: The sitting was only a preliminary one in which the accused (aside from some submissions) would simply enter a plea to the charges, give his particulars and bail would be requested if a not guilty plea is entered.  This could have easily taken place in open court because the magistrate would also have the option to order a ban on certain details - including particulars of accused, victim and charges – or a combination of all three.

In the event, the accused – who had walked into court covering his face – walked out and faced the clicking cameras and rolling videos. There is a lot to piece together here. Always assuming that the accused is always presumed innocent until proven guilty according to Maltese law – the question still has to be asked – in whose interest was the decision taken? When a public figure is accused of such crimes, is it not in the public interest for (at least) limited information to be disseminated. Do people not have a right to know?