Comments on: The judge’s son should stay out of it – it’s much better that way, for everyone’s sake

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:22:22 +0000

Prescient. Anglu Farrugia’s ruling on the original motion could potentially set the process back until well after his retirement.

By: Aunt Hetty

Aunt Hetty — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:46:01 +0000

A genleman would have bowed out gracefully from the scene retaining some some vestige of dignity. But then , I do not think that we are discussing gentlemen in this case.

By: C Falzon

C Falzon — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:27:17 +0000

“Or will he vote against impeachment and try to justify that decision?”

My guess is that he will vote in favour with the knowledge that there will not be enough votes for it to be upheld, and I suppose this would be agreed beforehand with the judge.

In some ways the inverse of what Lawrence Gonzi did with the divorce bill, but of course very different in many other ways.

By: Lomax

Lomax — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:50:08 +0000

I was also sorry to see David Farrugia Sacco there. It is a golden rule for a lawyer not to defend any client with whom he/she is heavily involved – in any manner whatsoever. Emotional involvement is the worst kind because it obfuscates your otherwise-objective vision.

By: Gaetano Pace

Gaetano Pace — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:41:46 +0000

If he retires it will be the most honourable way out. But then there is the education minister who will bring it to mind, anon, that in this country we do not have the culture of resignations.

It is through a country of political appointments, transfers, removals, for which none of Labour is as sensitive as David is for his father.

Surviving the impeachment motion is not a ‘not guilty’ verdict. It is what it should be, survival from an impeachment motion. It stands with the public to deem if he was guilty or not. A verdict which the public has the right to have and own.

By: Alexander Ball

Alexander Ball — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:36:19 +0000

What is there to defend? The Commission for the Administration of Justice told him he was in breach of the code of ethics but he defied them.

By: pablo

pablo — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:29:03 +0000

A doctor does not medicate his own family and it’s the same rule with lawyers.

I listened to the interview where Austin Sammut called for a better written code of ethics. If you have integrity and are worthy of holding a position of judging others in the first place, you will act ethically regardless of any written code.

As we still want to excuse the miserable sods that pass for authority in this country, we continue to use the ass of the law as a scapegoat.

By: ciccio

ciccio — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:14:46 +0000

I refrained from commenting about the Prime Minister’s actions in your previous post on this subject. I believe your analysis is right. The prime minister must have some strategy up his sleeve.

Probably even David Farrugia Sacco’s appearance on PBS (which I did not watch) is part of the game – an attempt to push forward the Farrugia Sacco family despite the prime minister’s statement (which was unavoidable in the circumstances) in order to prevent damage to the party.

By: curious

curious — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:45:52 +0000

Apparently Muscat was asked further questions but refused to comment.

“Addressing the House, Joseph Muscat said the House Business Committee will now decide on the way forward, refusing to comment any further on the case.” (MaltaToday)