Why a top criminal lawyer shouldn’t be minister of justice
I'm feeling cocky.
All talk about democracy from Franco Debono leaves me cold. The interests of democracy dictate, he said, that the minister who handles the police should not also handle the law courts.
He’s right (though wrong in his motivation).
But then common sense tells us that democracy also dictates how the minister who handles the law courts shouldn’t also handle criminals.
Yes, Franco Debono – even if the prime minister were to wake up one morning as cuckoo as Franco is cocky and give him what he wants – would have a democratic conflict of interest as minister of justice because he is, by his own description, a ‘top criminal lawyer’.
True, he would have to give up working as one for the duration, but he would also have to maintain his professional office because then what would he go back to, given that nobody stays a minister forever?
It is not in the interest of democracy for a top criminal lawyer to be minister of justice or the police. We saw that in the past and we needn’t go into it now – acqua passata, time to move on without repeating mistakes.
Top criminal lawyers by definition have strong links to criminals. They also depend on maintaining a favourable personal relationship with the police. They are not the right people to be given responsibility over the law courts, the penal system, prisons, or the police.
The conflicts of interest, and the risks to democracy, are too great.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well said.
Franco should also realise that parliamentary democracy isn’t about defence tactics used in court.
Indeed, politics is about persuasion.
Daphne, Jeff & Musumeci are playing the Martyrs on Facebook. Posting photos of you and trying their best to put the blame on you for this crisis.
[Daphne – They can both go and f**k a duck as far as I’m concerned. Luckily for Musumeci, he’s got one in the bedroom.]
Aha. ‘Whoever criticises Franco is responsible for his behaviour’ – Robert Musumeci.
Isn’t that a declaration of mental incapacitation?
Time to call in the men in white coats.
Oh please. So, who made HIM do it?
Pullicino Orlando and Musumeci should understand that Franco Debono must take his decisions by doing what’s right by the party and the country and this regardless of what anyone writes about him.
Debono, or anyone else for that matter, is not there to be appeased.
kemm tiflah tkun dardira
Thank god it’s a sunny day. This is how Franco’s top in that pic would look like in a westerly wind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Partit_laburista_logo.jpg
Yesterday, in his article in The Malta Independent, Arrigo did not mention the Nationalist Party once. He just argued in favour of an election and stopped there.
I am more convinved now that this is a gang attack and Franco Debono is being used by the gang itself. He is an easy prey with a huge ego = all they need to do is to egg him on.
The word is going round that El Capon has been promised a high post in the judiciary once his ex-class mate Turkey- Lurky Joe Muscat is installed as PM.
Any glimmer of truth in this?
Silly me, and I always thought that one of Malta’s leading criminal lawyers was a Minister of Justice.
Here, of course I am talking about the late Guido Demarco.
[Daphne – So am I, Silvio. Read my piece again and you’ll see that.]
Yes, you are right. Now I see what you meant.
I tend to agree.
According to that logic, a doctor couldn’t be minister for health, a teacher not minister for education, anyone who might one day have business interests abroad could not be minister of foreign affairs, and so on.
[Daphne – You are completely wrong and deliberately obtuse (or not very bright to being with). There are no conflict of interest issues in a doctor becoming minister of health. Patients are not in conflict with the health system. Criminals are in conflict with the police and the law courts.]
Also, even if you did not allow this so-called conflict of interest, it would still not prevent a minister of justice to study law and become a defence lawyer after he finishes his ministerial or parliamentary term.
[Daphne – Bit difficult, don’t you think? Ministers of justice are usually in their 40s or 50s. So the risk of their studying law for six years after that and then picking up a legal practice around retirement age are pretty small. Grow up and don’t be tedious. And that is quite apart from the six-year gap between leaving office and graduating, which is even more than the five-year mandatory ban some civilised countries have on ministers taking up positions with companies they dealt with after leaving office.]
Why resort to personal attacks on me just because I point out different arguments?
– Patients can well be in conflict with the health system if that system for example refuses to pay for a certain kind of treatment.
– Even a lawyer who starts at 46 or 56 can still earn enough money to make this a worthwhile enterprise.
[Daphne – A personal attack when I don’t know you from Adam, or even what gender you are? Learn when to let something go.]
Not all lawyers would be unsuitable for the justice ministry. There are other types of lawyers. Those in the civic courts, in commercial law, family, in private firms, and other lawyers holding administrative posts.
A defence lawyer being appointed a justice minister is a particular conflict of interest which cannot be compared with the examples you’ve brought. It’s a very much moral issue, and an issue of trust.
And there are also ‘prosecuting’ lawyers, which are more then eligible. Read about Thomas Dewey, who almost brought the New York Mafia to its knees. He almost won the 1948 Presidential elections.
I agree with you on this, so the appointment of Minister of Justice and Home Affairs should not be held by a lawyer than. They all rubbed shoulders with criminals, court personnel and the police.
I cannot imagine this ever changing under any administration.
http://pawlugatt.com/2012/01/14/the-value-of-democracy/
Maybe all ministerial posts should be held by housewives then?
[Daphne – If somebody is a politician, then she is not a housewife. Did you say you’re a lawyer?]
Franco Debono does not understand the long-term implications of his actions.
Let’s assume that he is genuine in his protestations, and that he does not want undemocratic practices. One such practice is having a “top criminal lawyer” heading the justice ministry.
On the Labour side, Anglu Farrugia and Jose Herrera, both ‘top criminal lawyers’ have their eye on the justice ministry and will be vying with each for it.
If Dr Debono brings the government down, and Labour is elected to power, it is a ‘top criminal lawyer’ who will become minister of justice.
Would that be democratic, Dr Debono?
[Daphne – Yes, he thinks it perfectly acceptable, because he wants the justice ministry for himself, remember.]
Debono spends lots of time talking to Jose Herrera, and I suspected at first that he might be instigating him – because if the government falls and Labour is elected, Jose Herrera gets to be justice minister sooner than he hoped.
Dr Debono, all modern pieces of legislation have a section, called Article 2, in which the legislator provides definitions. Perhaps you should give us your definitions of: “democracy”, “meritocracy”, “connections”, “friends”, “cousins”, and such terms.
So spot on!
There are criminal lawyers, and criminal lawyers. The ones who are constantly in the news for defending their clients should never be in office. It’s the same reason why Jose or Tuks should not even be allowed to see a cabinet post of such importance from a distance.
FINALLY. I’ve been trying to make this point a lot, but no one seems to see the conflict.
Both sides seems to be blinded by partisan hysteria (PL), or licking appeasement and fear of antagonising (PN).
YES, there is a great contradiction, and a great conflict of interest, if a top defence lawyer is appointed a Minister of Justice. Especially when one owns a private business in the field. A double conflict of interest.
Though it is a legitimate job and a right to the accused, the mindset would not be right. A prime minister should only appoint such a hybrid only if he had no choice, and probably not even then.
I know we have had such contradictory hybrids in the past, on both sides, but people tell you they were not nice days for justice in Malta, irrespective of how great as political giants they were.
YES, it is a contradiction in ‘subtle’ democracy, for the honest citizen, as much as the fuss created by Franco Debono for the cases when the inquiring magistrate and the prosecuting magistrate are one and the same.
Why the fuss? Because he is just looking from the angle of the accused.
There is a very high chance that a ‘combined’ magistrate does not wrongly convict an ‘innocent’ accused. On the other hand, if the magistrates are ‘separate’, the defence job is easier, and there would be a high chance that the prosecuting magistrate wrongly release a ‘guilty’ accused.
If Labour is elected, neither Anglu Farrugia nor Jose Herrera would be suitable. Muscat can appoint Gavin Gulia, who I think operates in commercial law, and who is not ‘tainted’ with criminal business.
Yes it is true, there is many an evil in politics. But trying to release people who are in all probability guilty of the crime they are accused of, on a mere technicality, is also evil. Justice would not be done. And you want to be ‘Justice’ ministers?
I recall when the Libyan Ambassador’s son was killed in Paceville, the young man who killed the Libyan teenager was defended by Dr De Marco’s daughter.
The Ambassador protested vociferously about the then Minister of Justice and his private law firm run by his daughter.
The ambassador was asked to return to Libya in no time.