Article 517 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta (known otherwise as the Criminal Code) allows the courts full scope for the banning of “any writing” about the cases before them. The same article specifies that those who fly in the face of any such ban are guilty of contempt of court, for which they may be punished. This blanket ban was laid down in the late 19th century, amended over the course of the 20th century, and then again in 2002.

You might imagine that the purpose of the amendments would have been to bring Article 517 in line with contemporary thinking on democracy and on freedom to discuss issues which affect the public, and to recognise that over the course of the last 125 years or so since that article of law was first written, power has devolved from authoritarian administrations all the way down to non-property-owning dependent wives and 18-year-old students with a vote.

But no: the purpose of the amendments over the decades was to close any breaches in the scope for a blanket ban which the developments of modern life, including sophisticated means of communication, have thrown up. It can be argued that the words “any writing”, which do not have the same meaning as “any publication” cover even email communication between friends. This is horrendously archaic, but I doubt that changing it is top of the list of priorities down at the Justice Ministry, which seems to prefer devoting its time and attention to securing signatures for petitions about abortion and the Constitution.

It doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence or imagination to see that allowing judges and magistrates full scope to ban publication of any or all details of a case leaves the way wide open for abuse. Article 517 also specifies that individual magistrates or judges are not to be singled out for criticism for banning “any writing” or discussion about cases, which leaves them pretty much off the hook whatever they decide: “No objection may be taken against any judge or magistrate on the ground that he was the sitting judge or magistrate when the order, to which the offence relates, was made.” The thinking is so dated that it is taken as given that judges and magistrates are men.

Fortunately, not many people in that position are susceptible to the temptation to help out a friend or are of such poor judgement that they think there is a valid reason for banning publication where there is none. I can’t say that all judges and magistrates are immune to the temptation to make ill-advised use of these very broad discretionary powers because, sadly, after the high-profile case that shocked us all some years ago, with the involvement of no less than the Chief Justice, I think it is unwise to make such sweeping statements.

I can say, though, that the courts have moved with the times in this respect at least. Rarely is there a ban on all coverage of a case. The only one that comes to my mind as I write this is the criminal case against priests accused of grave abuse of the boys in their care at a church-run home. Not only were we prevented from publishing the names of these paedophiles, but we are not allowed to report on the proceedings. The concern of the court may have been with the risk of sensationalising a case involving priests and young boys, but all the ban has done is protect the interests of the alleged aggressors. It also cheats the public of its need to see justice being done. Indeed, the public in this situation doesn’t even know whether justice is being done, and will not even know when and if the case is concluded. That may be correct procedure under our 19th-century law, but is it right? No, it isn’t.

* * *

You would have to be a very unreasonable person to object to a ban on the publication of the name of a minor charged with a crime. Those who are under 18 – an age when hormones and such can lead them to all kinds of trouble, particularly boys – should be allowed the privacy in which to mend their ways before they reach adulthood. I can fully understand, too, the arguments for banning the publication of the names of victims of domestic or sexual abuse: they are victims, not criminals, and have been through enough without being exposed to discussion and gossip.

I can even understand why there is a ban on the name of the abuser when his or her relationship to the victim may lead to the public identification of that victim, stripping off all privacy. Here though, I think that not enough is done to balance the victim’s need for privacy against society’s need to know who is dangerous to children or women. I think we would all like to know, for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with gossip, if the man we are thinking of inviting to dinner is a rapist or a paedophile.

The idea that it is not just acceptable but desirable for the wheels of justice to turn in secret where deemed fit is an antiquated one. It has its roots in the archaic belief that the authorities are justified in withholding information from the public, and even that such withholding of information is for the good of that same public. What passed muster in the 19th century does not do so in the 21st. The process of justice must be transparent; there should be nothing secret about it – not to give satisfaction to the curious, but because the openness of trials to scrutiny is a cornerstone of democracy. The days of secret trials are gone, but if a judge or magistrate tries a person or hears a case in open court, but bans publication of “any writing” about the proceedings, then those proceedings might as well be secret.

* * *

Though the courts rarely put a blanket ban on the publication of “any writing” about a case, they certainly have no such reservations about publishing the name of the accused. Minors and abusers of family members aside, these bans understandably anger the public, which no longer lives in the 19th century. Very often, the ban serves to protect nobody but the accused. If no one knows what he has been up to except for the individuals actually present in the courtroom and those they have told, this individual (if guilty, of course, which is not the same thing as being found guilty) is free to carry on gulling or abusing others.

When the court bans the publication of the name of an adult who is charged with a crime, in a situation where no minor’s privacy has to be protected, then in 21st-century thinking it is committing a dereliction of duty towards society.

* * *

Last Sunday, the newspapers reported that a singer was charged with fraud and with swindling a Gozitan farmer out of e1.6 million. He is alleged to have embezzled the money over two years while promising his victim that he would help him obtain EU funds for a project.

Let’s not get into the question of how a Gozitan farmer got his hands on e1.6 million in cash, or how somebody sharp enough to do so was stupid enough to think that you can get EU project-funding by handing over large amounts of money and no paperwork to a sweet-talking Maltese singer.

There’s such a thing as being too clever by half, which is a trap that people who are cunning but not intelligent often fall into. We haven’t a clue who this farmer is anyway, because his name wasn’t published. Nor was the name of the singer. The court banned publication of the singer’s name, arguing that disclosing his identity to the general public could have a deleterious effect on his current and future contracts.

Excuse me, but isn’t that precisely the point? His name should be published so that all those to whom he owes a great deal of money – and by various accounts, there are several – are given a vital piece of information which they need to help them decide how to proceed. This man may be attempting to talk others into giving him their money, which is why they have to know that he is currently facing charges for defrauding somebody of e1.6 million. True, he is innocent until proven guilty, but this is not a small sum we are talking about and if you were deciding whether to lend this man some money or not, it’s a fair guess that you would want to know about his fraud charges.

I really cannot understand why the court has decided to protect his business interests when what it should be protecting is the business interests of others – against him.

* * *

You can stop the media from publishing, but you can’t stop people from talking. And that’s part of the problem. If the newspapers announce that “a male singer” has been charged with this crime, then people will begin to speculate about who he might be.

And of course, this has left a hell of a lot of well-known Maltese male singers exposed to the suspicion that they are serious fraudsters. I’ve heard all kinds of names being bandied about, and you can bet that if I were a male singer, I would be the first to announce the name in any way I can to stop people thinking that it’s me. The court ruling is not just desperately unfair to those who need to know about the fraud charges, but also to other singers who have now been tarred with his brush.

When I read the news report of the case last Sunday, I immediately phoned my reporter friends to get the name. It wasn’t anyone I had heard of. The journalist who wrote one of the reports found out that this man owes money all over the shop, even though there are no other pending cases against him.

One businessman who he cheated told the newspaper: “He owes money to queues of people, but the list is so long that they haven’t bothered to sue because they know that the chances of getting anything back are really slim.” It is precisely because this man was using his ‘fame’ as a singer on the Maltese stage to get funds, loans and credit that he should be exposed. Hiding his name allows him to carry on.

This businessman told the newspaper: “Had the court not banned publication of his name, there would have been a lot more people suing him.” Many of them wouldn’t even be aware of the credit risk.

The action of the court may have been well-intentioned, but it’s a rum situation when the interests of those charged with serious fraud are put before the interests of any actual or potential victims out there.

Let’s hope that when and if this man is found guilty as charged, the court permits the media to tell people who he is. If it doesn’t, my reading of the situation is that it will be in breach of Article 517, which specifies very clearly than bans on publication of details (“any writing”) about the case apply only before “the termination of proceedings”.

In other words, once the case is over, we can say and write what we like about it and no court can stop us, even though it may try.