The leading article (editorial) in The Times today
The Times, Wednesday, October 5, 2011
All judges and magistrates must stand tall
The judiciary is in the news but for the wrong reasons, which certainly does no good to the administration of justice.
Details emerging from a libel case instituted by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera against Daphne Caruana Galizia in the wake of comments the columnist made in her blogs have brought to the fore increasing concerns about the state of the judiciary. Regardless of the outcome of the libel case, it has brought the judiciary into disrepute and highlighted the urgent need for action.
Coming on top of the shocking cases of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo and former Judge Patrick Vella, who had been found guilty together of accepting a bribe to reduce the jail term of a drug dealer, these cases have served to focus attention on the quality of the judiciary. They have highlighted questions about the selection of judges and magistrates, the procedure for removing bad apples and the whole question of how the judiciary should be held to account.
Ironically, this happens at a time when the members of the judiciary seem to be more focused on their wages and conditions of employment and the so-called Commission for the Administration of Justice being neither here nor there.
Franco Debono, a criminal lawyer and government member of Parliament, is campaigning for stricter criteria for the appointment of members of the judiciary and the means of holding them to account. This would include the speedy removal of those who failed to adhere to the highest standards of competence and behaviour, citing the practical difficulties of the impeachment procedures now in place.
The rule of law is vital to the successful workings of a democracy. The judiciary is the prime instrument in the exercise of the rule of law. The quality of those entrusted with that responsibility is crucial. When judges or magistrates are selected society has a right to expect that their selection is based on the highest professional and personal standards. They are expected to be professionally competent and experienced in the application of the law. But, above all, they must demonstrate high standards of personal behaviour and probity, be impartial, apolitical, objective and of excellent judgement.
On the whole, the country is well served by the judiciary. But more, clearly, needs to be done to ensure it gets the best and that those not up to the high standards required are weeded out. Under the Constitution, the appointment of judges and magistrates is in the hands of the President, acting always on the advice of the Prime Minister. Their selection is a task, therefore, very much in the gift of the Prime Minister. Has this system proved flawless?
The Commission for the Administration of Justice, which sits under the President, has the responsibility, inter alia, of advising on appointments to the judiciary “when requested by the Prime Minister” and supervising the workings of the justice system “and advising the Minister for Justice” as needed. In truth, however, this commission lacks teeth.
Before leaving office, the last Chief Justice, Vincent DeGaetano, had made a strong plea for the setting up of an independent body to look at the judicial system, to see what difficulties exist and to propose remedies. It is high time his excellent advice was heeded.
Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri raised the matter of delays in court proceedings and the lack of proper case management at the opening of the Forensic Year on Monday. His comments and advice too must be heard.
18 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
May I ask a question please?
If a contractor, plumber, perit, doctor, nutar, engineer, driver, industrialist, banker, hotelier, teacher, priest etc can be held accountable and sued for not carrying out his / her work correctly, can judges and magistrates be similarly sued personally when passing an incorrect judgement eg sending the wrong person to prison or deferring judgements from one year to another with no valid reason given?
Another University student using foul language, this time against Mr Austin Gatt.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111005/local/university-students-insults-minister-over-bus-service.387865
But this time no one’s shocked and calling her a hamalla, marmalja etc etc since she insulted a PN minister rather than a PL cameraman or a PL leader.
My experience throws more light on the slipshod manner some members of the magistracy administer justice.
Over six and a half years have elapsed since I initiated a court case against a lawyer who, in the first place, had requested the court to remove me as co-executor of my brother-in-law’s will, and who was later controversially appointed as executor in my stead.
In this case I requested the revocation of the decree in which Magistrate Herrera had dismissed me as a co-executor and thus to be reinstated in this position.
This case hinged on my dismissal as executor on the assumption (as stated in the magistrate’s court decree) that I did not appear in court twice in the hearing of this case.
THIS ASSUMPTION WAS UTTERLY FALSE, as it turned out that I was never notified about the first sitting because, as stated in the official court ‘riferta’ (PRINTED IN RED in the court file), I was overseas at the time.
With regards to the second appointed sitting, I was not present as I was misinformed about the date of the sitting by the office of my lawyer, as he himself stated in the court petition (rikors) he immediately lodged in my name and in his affidavit to this effect.
Magistrate Herrera turned down this petition and thus she displaced me as a co-executor without giving me the chance to appear in court even once to defend this case.
Are such unethical decisions acceptable to the Administration of Justice? Isn’t this a breach of a person’s human rights?
Ex members of the judiciary with decades of experience inform me that this case (which I initiated on 2nd. March 2005 to revoke Magistrate Herrera’s decree) should have taken a few months at most to decide, not six and a half years.
During one of the sittings of the case, held in January 2011, when the presiding magistrate deferred the case for another date in October 2011, just a few minutes after it was called with no progress at all being made, I politely tried to point out to the court that I felt that my fundamental human rights were being violated due to the inordinately long time (6 ½ years) this case was taking, and, during which time the other party to the case had not turned up in court with impunity for about 20 times.
The magistrate immediately discharged me from the courtroom and fined me 50 Euros for contempt of court.
I hereby, with sincere respect, ask the Hon. Chief Justice and also the Minister of Justice, who, in fact, is in contempt of court in such circumstances when the person at the receiving end suffers ongoing psychological and serious financial repercussions for so many years; especially so when the case is not complicated in any way.
I have one definition which suits the law courts: “bejta grieden”, a nest of rats, where people who should act immediately instead procrastinate to the disadvantage of the innocent parties, and this case proves it.
Dear Silvio,
Aren’t you aware that Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera and her cuckold husband are business associates of Dr Carmelo Galea? If not, please take note immediately as you are missing out.
[Daphne – That is what his case before the Commission for the Administration of Justice is all about, Zorro. Of course he knows.]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111005/local/university-students-insults-minister-over-bus-service.387865
Nothing we did not already know. It proves one thing, however – that The Times has finally linked Mrs Caruana Galizia’s persistence to Dr Balzan’s speech, which skillfully referred to the scandalous conduct of Magistrate Consuelo without actually mentioning her name,
What one wonders is how the CoAJ, whose Chair was present, has never revealed its investigation results regarding the magistrate.
Sewwa qalu. It makes one wonder whether the state of affairs (excuse the pun, given the circumstances) would have been allowed to continue had you not set the ball rolling.
“The Commission for the Administration of Justice, which sits under the President, has the responsibility, inter alia, of advising on appointments to the judiciary “when requested by the Prime Minister” and supervising the workings of the justice system “and advising the Minister for Justice” as needed. In truth, however, this commission lacks teeth.”
Does the CAJ even have a properly functioning office?
It is extremely interesting that Franco Debono seems to be advocating the speedy removal of members of the judiciary who do not adhere to high standards of conduct, id est Consuelo Scerri Herrera.
So it would seem that the Fellowship of the Ring – Jose, Consuelo, Franco, Jeffrey, Robert, and those two hobbits whose name I forget – is about to dissolve …
I would suggest–have already imploded.
Careful, Franco wasn’t invited to a birthday party, and if he was, locked himself inside.
He may have been seduced with their talk of bipartisan politics and dialectics when Jose’ was out of favour and in need of exposure.
He has been lobbying amongst others, for the presence of a lawyer during interrogation, the regulation of party financing and now this. Hardly their interests, even though they may have paid lip service in the past.
Franco took it at face value and proceeded.
The fellowship is about business interests concentrated in three particular districts. One of its identifying factors was being pro-EU thus ostracised by Sant, leading to its formation. It sold itself to disgruntled government backbenchers as a refuge following Lawrence Gonzi’s renewal of cabinet. The product was empathy and safety, the showcase, Smash TV.
Some bought into it.
Joseph Muscat soon realised he had nothing to lose and started using it to snatch anything within reach. The shop remains open till late accordingly to satisfy his cravings.
The PN realised it shouldn’t hand them over indiscriminately. Just those who have a tendency to explode in one’s face.
You have really to be really thick-skinned to hold on to your post after so much flak – really thick skinned.
If I may be permitted a slight digression, Daphne.
As of today, the phrase ‘Lack of Jobs’ takes on a whole new meaning. RIP.
We need more MPs like Dr Debono!
He’s one of the few who understand the importance of parliament and he’s using his seat for important matters, rather than stupid stuff which most of other MPs discuss.
@ Min Weber
The PN MPs who go to Consuelo’s parties are Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Stephen Spiteri, Jesmond Mugliett and Robert Arrigo. I don’t think Franco Debono ever formed part of that group. I have big dobts. He was never seen at her parties.
And what about those members of the judiciary who take time time off to travel around the world on sporting activities? What happens to their case loads?