Cowardly and self-serving lawyers are one of the main reasons this abuse continues to go on
Judge Wenzu Mintoff
Well done to Joe Zammit Maempel for being the only lawyer so far to take a public stand against Wenzu Mintoff’s appointment, to tell a newspaper that Mintoff tried to kick him in court (an incident that perfectly sums up the man) and that he will not accept to plead or defend any cases before him.
You will find that whenever a scandal erupts involving a judge or a magistrate, their corruption or sordid behaviour has long been known to lawyers who plead and defend cases in court.
But they accept it and work around it. This survivalist thinking is designed to help them survive in the short to medium term but not making enemies of judges and magistrates before whom they have to argue a case.
Yes, that is the extent of the corruption of the system: lawyers take it for granted that the impartiality of certain judges and magistrates is so badly impaired that if they criticise them or object to their behaviour they and their clients will be penalised.
It is pointless arguing that this in itself says much about how corrupt the system is: lawyers accept as a fact, unquestioningly and without anger, that members of the judiciary, who are meant to be completely impartial, will exact retribution on them for criticism.
They are right that this is likely to happen. I have been the victim of it myself, most conspicuously by Judge Noel Arrigo, whose spiteful judgement against me, after I had been critical of his behaviour when he was a trial character witness for his friend the cocaine smuggler Godfrey Ellul – was overturned by the Appeals Court.
But they are wrong to put up with it to survive in the short to medium term. The long-term damage being done is irreparable and increases exponentially.
The Malta Independent reports this morning that lawyers are “aghast” at the fact that Wenzu Mintoff – a person known for his major character flaws and his bitter spite and vindictiveness, which are actually secondary to his obsessive love for the Labour Party, which is hardly the real problem, has been made a judge. But they “do not wish to speak out individually for fear of prejudicing future cases appearing in front of (him).”
The net result?
Judge Mintoff and the government which appointed him in this corrupt manner – cronyism is a form of corruption – get away with the idea that there is no real objection to the matter. And the general public, who are unfamiliar with Wenzu Mintoff and his grave psychological handicaps, have no conception of how truly serious this matter is, and how abusive and irresponsible his appointment.
The Malta Independent also reports the president of the Chamber of Advocates as saying that “an internal discussion is currently underway and a position on the appointment is being formulated”.
19 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-07-18/news/wenzu-mintoff-tried-to-kick-me-from-the-witness-stand-lawyer-5880217602/
Hope lives eternal in the human breast.
A miraculous change of character similar to Saul’s conversion on his way to Damascus, readily springs to mind. The same can be said of the Borgia Pope who behaved unexceptionably well after his election than he did during his previous scandalous lifestyle.
There are other examples but I won’t be taking any bets.
In my day, and that is half a century ago, the law students were always considered to be the weak link.
When standing up to be counted, for some just cause or another, that is.
I suppose things have not changed very much since then.
The legal profession’s motto is, or rather should be, “Omm il-gifa qatt ma taghli”.
Shameful behavior by the esteemed lawyer, unethical.
To be appointed a judge one must have practised as an advocate in Malta for not less than twelve years, or so practiced and served as a magistrate for a period amounting in the aggregate to not less than twelve years, or have partly so practised or partly so served.
http://www.judiciarymalta.gov.mt
However as the Dr Andre Camilleri issue shows, there is disagreement on the meaning of practice. Is practice in the law courts necessary or is practice as a legal consultant suffice? Dr Andre Camilleri, to my knowledge, was not even a legal advisor when he was nominated as a judge.
Serving at the bar means appearing in court regularly defending one’s clients. Working for a major industry is not serving at the bar.
Mintoff did serve at the bar – tal-banda tal-festa.
This appointment is an utter disgrace to a democratic European state.
It’s not just lawyers.
Expecting lawyers and the Chamber of Advocates to stand up staunchly to be counted is a ridiculous expectation – as they are spineless self-serving money-grabbers.
What is the Opposition going to do, beyond ‘reasonable words’, to reverse immediately the appointment of Wenzu Mintoff?
Words are self-satisfying but meaningless when dealing with pimps, thieves and scoundrels.
I ask again, what action is the Opposition going to take to reverse the Wenzu Mintoff appointment?
[Daphne – Only a two-thirds majority in the House can now impeach Judge Mintoff, and there have to be specific grounds. He’s there for the next 10 years until his retirement.]
Daphne, the Parliamentary Opposition has a duty to respect our Constitution and will not be in a position to impeach due to an inability to garner two thirds of the House to vote in favour.
My question stands: What is the Opposition going to do to rectify this situation? Can it lead the opposition, in the form of the people, to take legal forms of action to render this appointment meaningless, any ideas are welcome. This is a seriously ominous appointment that must be confronted – not just by Simon Busuttil, or the PN MPs but by all us – led by Simon Busuttil.
David: for what is meant by “practice” you should consult the law. Dr Andre` Camilleri refused the post for the very reason you indicate.
The law does not have a definition of practice. If we go by past appointments made by various governments in the recent and not recent past to the bench and by Andre Camilleri’s views, court practice was, rightly or wrongly, not deemed a sine qua non.
There are still serving magistrates and judges besides Judge Mintoff who have had no or little court practice as advocates. It appears that it is only in the case of the Camilleri and Mintoff appointments that the lack of court practice was highlighted.
Unfortunately this is true: the legal profession is based on omertà’, which is not surprising since it is so small and incestuous (not literally). In an ideal world, litigators should refuse to appear before Judge Mintoff. Not that it would force him to resign: you need a modicum if integrity to do that.
‘..But they “do not wish to speak out individually for fear of prejudicing future cases appearing in front of (him)…’
Mbaghad nimlew halqna li Malta m’ghandiex kultura Mafjuza.
Muscat has no reason to give up his role as king maker when judges are appointed. If he had his way, any and every appointment would be his decision.
It is not cowardice, it is self-preservation and it is understandable to an extent. The LP is a nasty vindictive party, their motto is ‘you are either with us or against us’.
There is a big difference between the present continuous and what is in effect already in place:
People still say: “Malta is losing its pillars of democracy.”
I see that Malta “has lost its pillars of democracy” and each and every one of us would be justified in seeking political asylum elsewhere.
There is already one country that would not be a safe haven because its President is already working hand in hand with Joseph Muscat.
Cowardly and self-serving lawyers have always been a part of the judiciary. That does not mean that all lawyers are like that. However, it does affect the way justice is administered. I speak from experience.
It shouldn’t have to be like that. Justice and politics are two separate things. Politics should be left at the door of the courtroom and only justice should be allowed inside.
“ the extent of the corruption of the system: lawyers take it for granted that the impartiality of certain judges and magistrates is so badly impaired that if they criticise them or object to their behaviour they and their clients will be penalised.”
Again, speaking from experience the above is exactly correct. The judiciary is also very cautious of the police. On many occasions the police have given false witness and the judiciary ignores this despite perjury being a criminal offence.
The link below is the full transcript of the case that former disgraced EU Commissioner John Dalli brought against me in November 1999. I was acquitted of all the charges that Dalli and the police brought against me. If anyone cares to read the full court proceedings, you do not have be a legal genius to notice the gross discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses.
It is also evident that the prosecution did not have any evidence to bring all the charges they did against me.
I, like many others, have been deprived of being given a fair hearing. That confirms the sorry state the Maltese justice system is in. For most people it is not easy to receive the justice they deserve in Malta.
http://ec-eu-john-dalli.blogspot.co.uk/