(Malta) Following the condemnation by the Archbishop of Malta of a weekly newspaper the ‘Voice of Malta’, the entry into hospitals and branches of his department of newspapers condemned by the church authorities was ‘strictly forbidden’.
Held: On the basis of the provisions of section 14 of the Constitution even if the prohibition did not ‘prevent’ the editor from imparting ideas and information yet it quite plainly ‘hindered’ him in so doing and was an interference. The very purpose and intention of the prohibition was to hinder such imparting. The prohibition was imposed in order to aid the condemnation of the church authorities. The prohibition did not prevent government employees from buying and possessing and reading the ‘Voice of Malta’ at all such times as would not involve their having a copy in their possession while on government premises. But that said only that the most that the Minister thought that he could do was not effective to prevent government employees from reading the ‘Voice of Malta’ if any of them were determined to do so.
Judges:
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Citations:
[1967] 1 AC 115
Cited by:
Cited – Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla PC 14-Feb-2001
PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Media
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182067
