Why the private affairs of magistrates cannot be private – an example
The law allows for judges and magistrates to be prevented from presiding over cases which involve their blood relatives or relatives through marriage if they don’t abstain voluntarily, and this for good reason.
When Magistrate Herrera presided over this criminal case involving Joseph Musumeci of Siggiewi, she was already sleeping with Robert Musumeci of Siggiewi.
It was (supposed to be) secret and neither had left their spouse, so the police could not object, even if they had wanted to do so in the first place.
Riferenza 542/2006
________________________________________
Data 22/11/2007
Qorti TAL-MAGISTRATI (GUDIKATURA KRIMINALI)
Ġudikatura SCERRI HERRERA CONSUELO-PILAR
Partijiet IL-PULIZIJA vs JOSEPH MUSUMECI
Tip ta’ Sentenza SENTENZA FINALI
If you think there’s nothing wrong with that, you’re neither progressive nor liberal, and certainly not moderate. No. You’re just plain dumb.
11 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Objectively, I believe she had to step down… I must, however, claim that I suspect there were cases involving other members of the judiciary who might have over the recent past behaved in the same manner.
I am of the opinion that as in all other matters of professional or political ethics, we have a lot of nice rules but do not have the means of enforcing them.
How is this lad related to Kermit?
I cringe and cry and think I’m better off living under Lorry Sant and Mintoff or for all that matters under Castro.
At least at the time everyone knew what to do. Now things are so subtle – Chief Justice and Hon Minister of Justice please note this case.
Why is the judiciary like a sacred cow? Why does it take two-thirds of the House of representatives to impeach them?
Isn’t it time to revise the whole mess?
[Daphne – It’s important that judges and magistrates cannot be removed arbitrarily by the government. Imagine how risky that would be. Mintoff would have got rid of most of them, and would Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, with all his talk (and interviews in the London press) saying that the ‘people’s courts’ are more important than the real courts, which mean nothing. The problem has to be avoided at the start, by keen scrutiny of nominees to the bench. And I don’t mean scrutiny in camera by a few lawyers, but real public scrutiny. For there might be things that members of the public know but which the appointed scrutinisers do not. This was certainly the case with Noel Arrigo, whose debts, weak character and ‘privatge’ shenanigans were widely known among the business community and his social circle, but apparently not known in whichever ivory tower the decision was made. It was also the case with Magistrate Herrera – there were many question marks about her behaviour already. I think it is wrong and absurd that the public should wake up one morning to find a done deed. The irony is that a clean, straight person with an incisive mind, like Andre Camilleri, was turned down for the bench because he didn’t have the requisite 12 years of experience in court (he was a commercial lawyer, and would have made an excellent judge in decisions pertaining to commercial law), but then others who are lamentable get through because they do have the experience.]
That’s right – they have the experience of you-know-what. Andre Camilleri would have been too clean.
I agree with you one hundred percent about Andre Camilleri. He is the most decent, unpretentious lawyer I’ve ever worked with. I think that what should be revised is not the way judges and magistrates are removed, but the way they are appointed.
With respect to magistrates, it’s obvious that this post has become a job for lawyers who were incapable of making a decent living practising law, were fired by their private employers (I know what I’m saying) or for mothers and female lawyers who want to be home by the time their kids come home from school, or their lover has a couple of hours of spare time after lunch.
It’s just a cushy underpaid job. Now anybody worth his salt does not go looking for a cushy underpaid job. To compound matters they are also politically appointed solely on the basis of nepotism.
There should be a panel of independent people, of good repute and above politics, to appoint magistrates and judges. There should also be a strict code of conduct and any of them that breach that code of conduct should be brought before a disciplinary board, or the same panel that appointed them.
This is what transparency is all about. Ah and last but not least, they also need to be better paid. Once upon a time people accepted the post because it was an honour. Today we can hardly say that mixing with the likes of some elements of the judiciary is an honour.
[Daphne – Let’s not generalise. There are excellent magistrates who accepted the post for the right reasons, but I agree that certain individuals are bringing the whole set-up into disrepute.]
In fact I said “some elements” and I might add the “minority”, fortunately.
Well, perhaps we need the equivalent of marriage banns.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100211/local/eu-privacy-issues-warning-on-online-social-networks
hope the members of the judiciary learn something out of this after all
Here’s the link to the case in question, for those who may care to take a look:
http://www2.justice.gov.mt/sentenzi/judgm_judgement.asp?FrmJudgementID=46273&FP=11&FS=2&go=0
And then one wonders why Malta keeps falling in the corruption perception index.