Sorry I forgot to ask: is there any chance of letting your readers see a picture of Consuelo posing with the wardrobe on the Antiques Roadshow?

[Daphne – Oh, that was years ago.]

May I congratulate you on exposing the ugly things that go on in some parts of the Maltese judicial system; no one before you ever dared to take on such well-connected people.

I would suggest that someone should write a magnum opus on the Maltese judiciary – past and present. I am sure it will be a best-seller. Such a definitive work should also be compulsory reading for all first-year law students in Malta.

Sorry Grezz, don’t know you!

Point being that income before entering the judiciary was not necessarily “just an ordinary lawyer working in the far-from-booming economy under Labour.”

“If he were doing well as a lawyer at the time he would never have accepted the post of magistrate, because the salary was miserable back then and he had a family to support.”

Yes, but circumstances change, and he was not the only “breadwinner” before, and not necessarily the driving force.

Plus, unlike judges and magistrates, lawyers are allowed to moonlight!

OK, no more “pointless clangers”.

Maybe you’d care to enlighten us, David, after throwing in so many pointless clangers?

What do you mean ‘maybe’?

That’s the plan.

Thank you. I am sure that members of the Commission read this blog. I am also sure that the vast majority of lawyers are of the same opinion: Dr Scerri Herrera should resign. Forthwith.

This is a very sad page in the history of the administration of justice in Malta. The sooner a new page is begun, the better.

Readers of this blog might like to be informed that members of the public may write to the Commission for the Administration of Justice to lodge complaints. Perhaps, if a chorus of voices is raised clamouring for Dr Scerri Herrera’s resignation, she might wish to do so before the Commission arrives at a final decision.

Because, in the ultimate analysis, there seem to be only three possible scenarios.

1. The Commission finds nothing objectionable in Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour.

2. The Commission finds that Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour is objectionable and suggests steps to be taken.

3. Magistrate Scerri Herrera seeks a face-saving way out and resigns of her own accord (most unlikely).

If 1. were to happen, the judiciary and attendant state machinery will lose heavily in the credibility stakes.

If 2. were to happen, Magistrate Scerri Herrera might ignore the Commission’s words and stay on all the same. After all, there is nothing to stop her except impeachment, and that’s never going to happen.

What’s life without a few mysteries – but I know what I’m saying.

Alas, life can sometimes throw a devastating and unpredictable spanner in the works, and the weaker individuals do not know how to cope!

The wise judge was then elevated to the Court of Appeal and next he was to be found dispensing human rights in the European Court. Maybe Joseph Muscat if he comes to power will continue this farce and appoint Consuelo as the Maltese judge in Strasbourg.

Stephen – it seems to me that you want to pillory Eddie Fenech Adami for appointing these judges to the bench. Sorry mate you’re hitting the wrong tree. Let’s for arguments’ sake say that it is the PM who submits names for the bench, as he did in the case of Dr Andre’ Camilleri. Still it is the Commission for the Administration of Justice which decides on whether or not they are accepted. It was Dr Fenech Adami who submitted Dr. Camilleri’s name only to have him rejected by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, not because of any misdeed or character flaw or anything of the sort, but because, or so it was claimed, he did not have the required 12 years of experience in court. So the PM is not the last word about appointments.

Let me remind one and all that Dr Andre’ Camilleri underwent public scrutiny from all parts of the system. There never was a magistrate or judge who underwent such thorough scrutiny, following the judges’ scandal. That’s what should be done in the future. A thorough public scrutiny by the Commission for the Adminsitration of Justice.