The magisterial inquiry
This article is published in The Sunday Times today.
Georg Sapiano
Last Sunday this newspaper indicated editorially that the facts which the ongoing Consuelo Scerri Herrera case throws up may yet make the magistrate’s position as untenable as that of former Police Commissioner George Grech.
In my view the manner in which Scerri Herrera has carried herself since the court case started, both inside and outside the courtroom, already makes this statement accurate.
The first allegation the magistrate is countering in court is that she displayed undue familiarity towards several members of the police force.
Specific reference was made to her behaviour during a lunch in a Valletta restaurant in which drinks were sent to her by two policemen seated elsewhere in the restaurant.
She remembered the lunch and acknowledged under oath that drinks were in fact sent to her but claimed there was nothing wrong in it because, contrary to what was alleged, neither of them was ‘sleazy’.
Indeed, she said, one of them was the then head of the vice squad, Michael Cassar. The latter furiously and swiftly denied her testimony and wrote to the Chief Justice to point out that he had never sent drinks to any magistrate in any restaurant.
Clearly, he had understood a point that Scerri Herrera appears not to appreciate: Magistrates should not have intimate friendships with policemen nor even accept drinks from them, because they regularly appear as prosecutors before them. Indeed, when Scerri Herrera made her complaint against her accuser, Daphne Caruana Galizia, it was the police who prosecuted the latter and did so in a magistrate’s court.
Cassar’s denial was quickly followed by yet another one. This time it was the Chief Justice and the other members of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.
They felt that the magistrate had – at least as reported in the press – wrongly suggested during her testimony that she had been cleared of impropriety in the conduct of her financial affairs, a case relating to a property development in Lija. To add to her troubles, the magistrate now faces the claim that during her case she said something that turned out not to be true – twice – under oath.
It has further been alleged by Caruana Galizia that, in November 2007, Scerri Herrera acquitted the brother of a man she was having an illicit affair with from the crimes he was accused of. Had she been married to the man, Robert Musumeci, she would have been obliged to abstain from hearing his brother’s case, for reasons of transparency.
Yet the rule does not just apply to close relatives of the spouses of judges and magistrates. Indeed, they are pointedly directed (art 23 of their code of ethics) to avoid any circumstance that can reasonably be interpreted as prejudicial to a fair hearing.
Months after the acquittal the magistrate left her husband and went on to live with Musumeci. The very serious implication here is that the magistrate abused her position to favour the brother of her lover. All she had to do to quash the allegation was to immediately declare that at the time she was not involved with Musumeci and therefore there was no threat to a fair trial. She did not. Then the case began, she took the stand and again coolly ignored the claim that justice had been corrupted. Her silence does not suggest a willingness to tell the truth. Rather, it invites the comment that she is simply trying to avoid being contradicted for a third time.
The events above, and the one that follows, consolidated my view that Scerri Herrera should no longer form part of our judiciary. She recently attended a lunch with a Nationalist MP, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. She is hearing a case that he is a defendant in, while he may be called to judge her if any of these events lead to a vote on her impeachment in parliament.
How reassuring, for those who believe that people at the top openly scratch each others’ back.
This case has made us reflect deeply on our institutions, especially the press and the judiciary.
Like several others, I too have misgivings about the language used to make some of the allegations but bringing them to the fore required courage and was undoubtedly in the public interest.
In any event, people who dislike the style of a controversial journalist can largely ignore his or her articles. The judiciary, on the other hand, cannot be similarly avoided and we are bound by the judgments of even a discredited magistrate… unless that magistrate resigns.
40 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Give her a break next Sunday, you know, sort of the Roman clemency for the Jewish Easter.
Hallelujah. And amen to that.
Very good article by Georg Sapiano. From the facts I heard I personally have no trust whatsoever in this magistrate. I hope that something will be done so that she is forced to resign since she does not want to do this freely. She is not competent to hear the cases of other people and to administer justice.
The only way that a member of the judiciary may be permanently removed in by a motion of impeachment in parliament that is then approved by two-thirds majority. From the looks of it, cf the ongoing attacks on Daphne and on members of our family in the Labour Party media, the Opposition is parliament is already well and truly sewn up; with one or two MPs on government side also compromised for good measure.
The impeachment provision assumes that a member of the judiciary would have at least some vestige of decency, however small, that when faced with the prospect of impeachment would motivate that member to bow out and retain some degree of respect – it is becoming increasingly evident by the day that even that minuscule level of decency is totally absent in the case under review.
All that Consuelo needs to do now is to sit tight, weather the storm, and then live [not necessarily] happily ever after on taxpayers’ money up to retirement age, and on a pension also funded by taxpayers’ money thereafter.
Well said.
When I look around me I realise that it is a privilege to have a father like you.
She cannot be forced to resign. She’d have to be impeached by a two-thirds majority vote in parliament. The only other alternative is to relieve her of her duties, which means paying her until she reaches retirement age at which point she’ll be paid a pension.
we’ve paid so many dockyard workers to get out of the MDD, why not hand her a lump sum and to hell with her from the Bench.
I think it is worth stressing that the pillarsof the state are meant to be separate. So the judiciary is meant to be independent from the legistlative, i.e. parliament, and the executive (“the government”).
A main problem that has emerged in this story is the close relationship that there appears to exist between the magistrate and members of parliament. This not only puts the magistrate in a difficult position in her job, but undermines the institutional separation of the functions of the state which is the mechanism underlying the procedure of impeachment.
Bundle that with the possible conflict of interest of the President as the head of the CAJ on the matter and we really have a serious constitutional crisis.
Georg Sapiano has written a well-balanced article.
“She recently attended a lunch with a Nationalist MP, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. She is hearing a case that he is a defendant in, while he may be called to judge her if any of these events lead to a vote on her impeachment in parliament.”
She’ll make that mistake many more times unless she strikes every MP off her guest list and refuses their invitations in turn.
Finally we read on the Times a well balanced article. An article that shows very clearly how right Daphne was to expose the unsavoury behaviour of this particular magistrate.
Yes, but it had to be an opinion piece two months after the story broke, rather that an a report when the incidents actually happened.
The Sunday Times prints history, not news. Any thought of news and it’s wetting its pants in fear. A newsroom that big and it can’t do better than reporting on press calls and carrying out tame interviews.
This has been said before: The Times “takes notes”, which is just slightly different than what the CAJ does.
Georg Sapiano is one of the few people in Malta – apart from Daphne – who are not afraid to speak their mind. He too has my respect for that.
Uzgur, ISSA li l-vilta’ u l-abbus tal-poter telghu f’wicc l-ilma u difficilment tista tinjorahom, issa l-gazzetti qed johorgu jiddefendu lil Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Fejn spiccat id-dikjarazzjoni tal- editur tat-Times illi se jahsel idejh minn dan il-kas? Li dak li taghmel magistrata fil-hajja privata taghha hija affariha u li m’hemmx lok ghall-indhil??
Viva l-konvenjenza politika! Xhar ilu Daphne Caruana Galizia kienet l-anti-Krist, xidja li haqqa canfira u skulaccjata talli ssolevat dubji skomdi fuq l-integrita’ tal- Gudikatura Maltija.
Issa li tant hareg hama u gmied li hadd iktar ma jista jiskapula l- fatti, IVA, issa lesti jilqaw l-allegazzjoni varata minnha li ghandna l-gudikatura korrotta. Annunzio Vobis Gaudium Magnum. X’rivelazzjoni!
Kodardi. Trabbu biss il- kuragg meta haddiehor diga firxilkom is-sodda. Kieku DCG ma kelliex ir-rizorsi tikxef il- hnizrijiet ta’ Consuelo Scerri Herrera, bhalissa minflok tfahhruha qeghdin tiddibattu kif se tiffucilawha.
Such an outcry and the whole truth has not come out yet! The knock out blow is still yet to come!!
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.
Romans 1:18-25
Uzgur, ISSA li l-vilta’ u l-abbus tal-poter telghu f’wicc l-ilma u difficilment tista tinjorahom, issa l-gazzetti qed johorgu jiddefendu lil Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Ghandek ragun. Se nibdew niccaqalqu fl-ahhar. Tal-misthija.
Tista tghidli fejn u liema gazzetta qeghdin jappoggjaw lil Daphne. Ghax safejn naf jien sal-lum ebda gazzetta mhi qed taghmel pressjoni biex din il-magistrat mahmuga tigi mnehhija mill-Bank tal-Gudikanti.
S’issa hadd hlief Daphne Caruana Galizia mhu qed jaghmel talba simili.
Anzi anke l-Kummissjoni ghall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Gustizzja jidher li qed tahsel idejjha bhal pilatu. Heqq, jekk ghandna qrati korrotti, xi trid taghmel? It-tajba hi li imhallfin u magistrati ohra li jaghmlu gieh lill-gudikatura qed jahlu mal-mahmugin. Din il-kwistjoni il-Magistrat qaletha ghax kienet HI li kisret il-Kodici tal-etika billi cappset fuq facebook il-hmieg kollu taghha. U ta dan HI BISS hija RESPONSABBLI u issa trid thallas tal-irresponsabilta’ taghha. Mhix denja li tiggudika lill-ebda persuna.
Jekk fadlilha gieh, ghandha twarrab minghajr ma tigi mnehhija. Hi taf li ma tistax titnehha ghax hemm il-gakbini u tradituri fil-parlament, imma f’ghajnejn il-poplu, hija biss gerha lis-sistema tal-gustizzja f”pajjizna u gerha kbira.
Georg Sapiano was spot on. Another one bil – BAJD.
Yes George Sapiano was spot on. But as someone else remarked, why now? It’s been going for two months and Daphne did it on her own against all odds. I am sure that in the coming days and weeks others will follow suit but the one with real bajd remains Daphne. Nonetheless it was nice to read the article by George Sapiano and I have great respect for him.
Let us give credit to Dr. Sapiano. Maybe The Times had some editorial policy or other not to publish similar articles – until now, that is.
Prosit Georg, veru li int ta’ zaqqek f’fommok, u li zaqqek tesgha hobza u kelma ma’ tesaghhiex.
F’giegh il-haqq, min ghandu jisma’ ha jaghti widen ghal li kiteb Dr Sapiano.
A bit late I think but better late than never. Now dear Editor of The Times it is the time to delve deeper into this story and not rely on op eds, blog posts by Fr Joe etc…
An opinion piece is the reponsibility of its writer, as long as it’s not libellous. A news report reflects the values of the paper itself.
That is why The Times and The Sunday Times won’t touch the story.
Well written, Georg. I wouldn’t doubt that the judge’s notes do not differ much from what you wrote.
The magistrate has little option but to resign immediately. Carrying on with the police case against Daphne Caruana Galizia is a mere exercise in futility and buying time and salary for the magistrate until the inevitable takes place.
The Commission for the Administration of Justice has the duty to preserve (in this case restore) trust in the judiciary which has been severely tested by the recent incarceration of two judges.
This is not a political issue, although the magistrate made sure to involve the naive from both sides of the political spectrum.
Daphne did one hell of an investigative job and Consuelo would do well to cease the case now before more truth will come out putting her in worse jeopardy.
Yes, Daphne did one hell of an investigation job. The fact remains – should it have been done by her, especially when most of Consuelo’s misdemeanors were common knowledge? Qisu kkulhadd jibza jitkellem f’dal-pajjiz, ma’ jmurx jirfess kallu ta’ xi haddiehor.
So at last, and excuse the well-worn cliche’, we are seeing right-minded people putting their money where their mouth is. Prosit Georg Sapiano, excellent article, as were Father Joe Borg’s, and Vanessa McDonald’s.
It is now up to the Commission for the Administration of Justice to pronounce itself.
The Institute of ‘whatever’ can go and get stuffed.
Some sort of reaction from the Chief Justice would be deemed fit too.
Dr. Sapiano, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said.
Georg forgot (or chose not) to mention the commission for the administration of justice. Is our president deaf, dumb and blind?
Another thing, can any MP propose a motion of impeachment? If so, does one exist with the balls to do so?
dix points
Did someone mention the Institute of Journalists? What a joke! Malcolm Naudi, if I were you and if I had some honour, I would resign immediately.
Georg is good –
It seems that The Times/The Sunday Times stable have woken up now that the can of worms has been opened.
The Times never had a penchant for investigative journalism and sometimes local news was published two days after it broke. The Times is now devoting more than two pages to UK news which is stale on publication date given that readers have already heard about it on Sky, BBC and other channels.
“Not a nice trio and it looks like Geo Sapiano wants to, after his funny little effort in The Sunday Times last week, make it a foursome of nastiness against the PL.”
No need for a URL. The source is self-evident.
I do not think Georg is “nasty” in fact he is well-mannered and he knows exactly what to say without rudeness.
I don’t think George is nasty. I was quoting Maltastar.
Well said Georg and very much to the point.