Horses for courses
See that judge there? He's coming to ask me for more money again. Tell him I'll give him an answer when I see him in court tomorrow.
This is my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
Here’s the shadow minister for justice, Jose A. Herrera, writing in The Times yesterday:
“As the opposition member responsible for justice, I have, as expected, been persistently approached by various members of the Bench who have clearly pointed out their dissatisfaction with such a situation.
Notwithstanding their position in Malta’s hierarchy, the Bench has commenced a nosedive in terms of salary scales within the government service.
It is to be appreciated that, in order to have a strong and efficient judiciary, we have to entice the best legal brains available. Surely, the financial package being offered nowadays is far from attractive in this regard.”
If the shadow minister for justice hasn’t been rendered stark, staring mad by the heat (and I have good reason to believe that he hasn’t), then Jose A. Herrera has been cut from the same cloth as his sister, who only last week received a night-time visit at her home from the Leader of the Opposition and Mrs Muscat.
Neither of them, and the people whose visits and overtures they receive, appears to understand anything about the separation of powers, clear parameters, boundaries, and the transparency which leaves no room for public doubt in the administration of justice.
If Jose A. Herrera understands these things, then his cavalier disregard for them, the absolute arrogance with which he ignores such basic standards in public life, is shocking.
People tend not to read newspaper articles written by politicians unless they are flagged up. But what the newspapers choose to flag up is interesting.
The finance minister’s utterly idiotic but ultimately harmless statements about his belief in a weeping Madonna who didn’t want divorce were given the coverage they deserved.
But as I am writing this column, the shadow minister for justice’s disturbing belief that he can receive the overtures of judges lobbying for more money, at a time when he is still pleading and defending cases before them, has received no ‘flag-up headline’ at all, not even in the newspaper which ran the piece.
What Jose A. Herrera is telling us here is that he – a lawyer who argues cases before judges and tries to secure the best outcome for his clients (as all lawyers do) – is “persistently approached” by those same judges who lobby him with requests for better pay, in anticipation of when he becomes minister for justice in roughly 18 months’ time.
You would have to be Jose A. Herrera to see nothing wrong with this, so much so that you even show off about it in a newspaper article.
But it is beyond shocking.
It is calamitous that the behaviour of some judges has plummeted to the point where they are lobbying a criminal lawyer, who argues cases before them, like workers’ union leaders who see a new boss on the horizon. That they can sink so low, disregarding basic ethics, is incomprehensible.
If they think the money is insufficient, they shouldn’t have taken the position. They knew what the money was before they took it. Being a judge is a position of honour and prestige. It’s not something you do for the money.
But this sort of behaviour, and previous and ongoing shenanigans, has gone a long way to undermining that very prestige and honour. We are rapidly reaching the point where to be a judge or magistrate is to be a member of a club to which decent, right-minded and correct people do not wish to belong.
Secure in the knowledge that he will soon be justice minister, Jose A. Herrera actually boasts that judges think so too. I rather suspect that part of the reason he boasts about it so publicly is because he wishes to put the boot in to his rival for the cabinet post, former police inspector Anglu Farrugia.
He seems oblivious to what the sensible reader will think on reading his words: that the potential for horse-trading is enormous in unofficial discussions like those.
It is absolutely unacceptable for judges to have private meetings with lawyers who argue cases before them, still more when in those meetings it is the judge who is requesting something of the lawyer, something that has nothing to do with a particular case being pleaded.
The public should have its mind at rest that there is no such horse-trading or persuasion. The judiciary, including Jose A. Herrera’s own sister who no doubt hopes to be made a judge herself and benefit from better pay and conditions, has scandalised us sufficiently and we don’t need more of this sort of behaviour.
The proper time for Jose A. Herrera to discuss what judges are paid is when he is minister for justice, and the proper way for him to do it is at arm’s length, through a battery of senior civil servants who will ensure that nothing unseemly takes place.
The risk of inappropriate exchanges is ever-present in a situation where the minister for justice is somebody who was, until he became minister, a lawyer working in the courts, to which he will return when he ceases to be in the cabinet.
It is beyond ironic that Joseph Muscat is demanding the resignation of the prime minister’s chief of staff, for ringing the police commissioner to make sure that there is no political interference in an investigation, while his shadow minister for justice is discussing salaries with judges in between pleading cases before them.
I cannot believe that I am sitting here spelling out these things, feeling as though I am surrounded by the inhabitants of a small town in the Sicilian hinterland. Our history has been different over the last 200 years or so, but you would never believe it when reading Jose A. Herrera.
If even judges and magistrates have to be told these things, that they should not lobby a criminal lawyer who argues cases before them, in preparation for when he becomes minister for justice, then it is not surprising at all that one of their number, the sister of the future minister for justice, does not see why the Leader of the Opposition should not call at her home.
When Magistrate Herrera said under oath in court (falsely, as it turned out) that she had lunch with Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Cassar, who was then head of the Vice Squad, he gave an immediate public statement to the press denying it, and within hours hand-delivered a letter to the Chief Justice putting this fact on record.
This is because he knows that no police officer, still less somebody of his rank, can enter into private social or personal engagement with a member of the judiciary without compromising both. The Leader of the Opposition and future prime minister cannot make any such statement because the reports of his visit are correct.
And worse still, Jose A. Herrera, future minister of justice, boasts of his discussions with judges as they plead for more money. Where do they have these discussions – at Cafe Cordina, or at his sister’s parties, where judges are among the guests?
It is true that judges should be paid more, not least to keep the worst among them away from the temptation to take bribes from drug traffickers (though checking their integrity might be the better option), but this is not how it should be done.
24 Comments Comment
Reply to anthony Click here to cancel reply
Very well spotted.
Actually, I would underline “as expected” in the following quote:
“As the opposition member responsible for justice, I have, as expected, been persistently approached by various members of the Bench who have clearly pointed out their dissatisfaction with such a situation. ”
Shall we give him some time, maybe he will publish a correction and say that the devil ate his “not” in “as not expected.”
Issa ghandu johrog jghajjat Joseph Muscat! Jekk hu ragel mhux imur joqghod jifflirtja mal-pufti, imma jaqbad u jghid lil Herrera jirrizenja. JEKK HU RAGEL.
One expects the Chief Justice – unless he belongs to this group of hillbilly judges whose ambition in life is to bootlick the next Justice Minister – to launch an investigation to uncover these irresponsible judges who dent the trust of the public in the judiciary, and ask them to resign, or else not to hear cases represented by Herrera or one of his firm’s lawyers.
I also expect Carm Mifsud Bonnici to do the right thing and launch a parallel inquiry himself. If CMB stays put, he is a moral accomplice of Herrera’s brazen-faced disregard of the basic tenets of a democracy.
To me, this whole imbroglio is nothing short of favour trading.
SHAME SHAME SHAME
It is high time we stop the rot. PM Gonzi OPEN YOUR BLESSED EYES AND TAKE ACTION. The Ship of State is sinking. And you’re there on deck with your pair of strong arms doing what?! Spreading suncream on the shoulders of Virgin-seeing Finance Ministers?!
TIME TO DO SOMETHING.
You are just allowing the Opposition to dictate the agenda, with silly stories of gay men calling on their godfather to have their father let off the hook, and similarly silly stories of gay men’s godfathers visiting the house of a man married to a dying wife… WHAT IS THIS? A SOAP OPERA?
Dr Gonzi: history beckons. Grow up (morally) and become a Man of State. Get the Ship of State back to the deep, calm waters of economic growth and clear navigation, out of the current shallow waters full of petty, partisan shoals.
very well said!
Why do you all believe that the judges have approached him?
Evidence?
His word only?
That is why I am proposing two inquiries: one by the Chief Justice, one by the Minister for Justice.
On second thoughts, a third inquiry should be conducted by the Police… if Herrera is saying the truth, this might end up being criminal behaviour. On his part, and on the part of the judge(s) who allegedly spoke to him.
Let us hope that the Chamber of Advocates will react to this public display of disregard for fundamental codes of behaviour.
You kidding? If little Joey and his band of miscreants gain power, the Chamber of Advocates will become a Chamber of ‘Horrors’. Brings to mind Vincent Price and the ‘Pit and the Pendulum’.
My favourite’s ‘The Masque of the Red Death’.
Red death. Very appropriate too.
Liked that too, Baxxter–if only.
I wonder why Jose’ A Herrera did not add doctor (or LLD) to his name.
“As we are all only too aware, in this legislature, the government made arrangements to raise significantly the remuneration of Cabinet ministers to the extent that, today, they are earning close to double what they used to get in the past.”
Jose’ is not telling his readers the whole truth. Ministers cannot do another job like they used to do, so for example we cannot have our health minister Dr Joe Cassar examining his clients in a clinic like Vincent Moran used to do in his private clinic during the Golden Years of Labour.
That means that Dr Cassar has to be decently remunerated, unlike Dr Moran who was a part time minister and family doctor.
[Daphne – You forget something, John: ministers are no longer permitted to be corrupt or enter into deals with supplicants, as they were and did in the Golden Years of Labour.]
I’m not trying to denigrate Dr Moran, but times change and EU exigences demand that we have our ministers work 25 hours a day on their job, which should be well paid.
The only criticism I have over this blessed pay-rise is that they “appeared” to be ashamed of it.
They should have declared, from day 1 and loud and clear that Ministers etc will be getting a decent salary that goes with the responsibility their job entails.
If they had done so there wouldn’t have been the PR disaster there was.
I am perfectly happy with a salary that reflects the status and responsibility on condition that they resign when they screw up. What stinks is the double pension that the political class have given themselves. What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander, but that is clearly not the case.
It seems that few people in politics or who hold important roles in society actually respect the parameters in which they have to live.
Most of them still seem to think they are in their 20s and can do what they like and get away with it.
I guess since Malta is so small, and so everything is so close together, not just geographically, but socially as well, the idea of having to observe those parameters seems presumptuous and arrogant.
In other words “Who do you think you are?” is usually what people say when other individuals try to live their lives properly and with respect towards the tradition in which they work, whether it is the law, politics or anything else.
Malta is almost a working-class nation where any displays of social distance are avoided, disliked and demonized.
Not that people in high positions should be aloof and snobbish. They need to keep a connection with the people. But they need to keep themselves in line.
Just like people do in other countries.
People who don’t make a mockery out of the country, its people and its identity.
Is Jose A. Herrera the new shop steward of The Bench Workers Union?
This was posted on one of Cyrus Engerer’s Facebooks earlier on this evening;
http://www.papalepapale.com/develop/circus-engerer-dallomosessualismo-alla-pornocrazia-malta-post-cattolica/
He is is becoming quite an international celebrity.
Typical. We never do things by halves here in Malta. We get our first sex scandal, and whaddaya know – it’s cross-party GAY sex scandal.
Malta sejra lura bhal granc. This is what my ninety-year-old-plus parents tell me day in day out.
Can somebody please explain to them that not all members of the judiciary are up to their neck in sleaze and corruption?
Please tell them that the ones in cahoots with Jose A. Herrera are a minuscule minority.
Tell them that the vast majority of our magistrates and judges follow in the footsteps of the Hardings, the Montanaro Gaucis and the Magris. Not to add Mercieca, Camilleri, Mamo, Caruana Curran, Caruana Colombo, Galea Debono, Ganado. Debono and Parnis. Also Carbone and Frendo Azopard,i both distant relatives.
The lineage of the Maltese judiciary is illustrious.
It will not be tarnished by the Herreras,
They are just a minor blip.
If a rotten apple is not removed, you do know what happens to the other apples, don’t you?
You have already forgotten Arrigo and Vella. Illustrious!
What’s this with the A. middle name of Jose Herrera? When I read his piece yesterday, at first I thought that it was written by some other Jose Herrera who needed to distinguish himself from the Labour MP, thus using his middle name initial, like Alfred C. Sant does, for example.
It stands for Asshole.
“The finance minister’s utterly idiotic but ultimately harmless statements about his belief in a weeping Madonna who didn’t want divorce were given the coverage they deserved”
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean the statements per se weren’t harmful in that the law went through at the end of the day so no harm done? It that case, fair enough I guess. Or are you saying that the belief itself is harmless? In that case I disagree.
First of all, all irrational belief is potentially harmful. Secondly, an irrational belief that makes a powerful man oppose a just and necessary law is clearly not harmless.
” As the opposition member responsible for justice , i have , as expected , been persistently approached by various members of the Bench ——— ”
Now I expect all judges and magistrates to issue a statement denying Jose A. Herrera’s claims.
A revision of salary scales will not necessarily attract the “best brains” but make it cushy for the friends of friends, earmarking the inner circle in advance of calls for application and promotions…..Oh what a circus, oh what a show…..