Judiciary warned about Facebook
One of Magistrate Herrera's Facebook photographs, showing the magistrate on the left
You would have imagined that anyone fit to be made a judge or a magistrate would not need to be told these things. But obviously, that’s not the case, because people are appointed to those posts who were never fit for them to begin with.
Judiciary told to keep off Facebook
Vanessa Macdonald – di-ve.com
15 February 2010 — 20:00CEST
Members of the judiciary have been told to keep away from Facebook and other social networking sites, as they could be in breach of the Code of Ethics.
The Commission for the Administration of Justice recently approved an amendment, proposed by the Chief Justice in terms of rule 29 of the Code of Ethics for Members of the Judiciary, to have a new paragraph inserted in the Guidelines attached to the said code under the heading “Social, cultural and other activities”.
The new paragraph reads as follows: “Since propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge, membership of ‘social networking internet sites’ is incompatible with judicial office. Such membership exposes the judge to the possibility of breach of the second part of rule 12 of the Code.”
The new clause comes hot on the heels of legal action after Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera was ripped apart on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s online blog, which included photos posted onto Facebook by the magistrate of various personal and social occasions.
29 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I’d say membership of Facebook should be made obligatory. It would help flush out the indiscretions and connections that would otherwise be kept hidden.
I guess you’re right in a way. Let the idiots expose themselves.
I think it is not membership in these social networks that is wrong but the actual behaviour. If you act decently then anyone can post any pictures of you and you will never be ridiculed. Rather than speak about Facebook which was the vehicle the Commission should be speaking about what the photos depicted.
[Daphne – Of course magistrates and judges shouldn’t be on Facebook! For heaven’s sake. The list of ‘friends’ is in itself a problem to start with, and you’re exposed to all sorts.]
I don’t follow your logic. Surely the whole point is to behave ethically at all times, and not to hide it as best possible. Facebook only exposes this misbehaviour, don’t shoot the messenger. Shoot the judge.
[Daphne – The very act of being on Facebook, however ‘innocuous’ it might be, is not appropriate for a judge or magistrate.]
Yes, Daphne, you’re right. If a member of the judiciary wants to be on Facebook, he must be accepted as a “friend” by others and he also has to accept others as a “friend”.
Now as far as I am concerned, the judiciary cannot have ‘friends’. What will be the position of the judge/magistrate if this “friend” one day appears in front of him for judgement?
@Philip
If a magistrate has friends, at least through Facebook we would know who these friends are and watch out for conflicts of interest. Without Facebook these friends will still exist, but who knows who they are? They could be someone you’re facing in the magistrate’s court and you’d be none the wiser.
I understand the ‘Friends’ argument completely.
That should shut a few mouths up. I wonder if maltastar.com bothered reporting the same thing.
This amendment begs the question: ‘stay off Facebook, or…. what?’
What exactly will happen if a magistrate defies the order and stays on Facebook all the same?
It just shows how important the media is – more important than social or ethical sanctions, because in the end it wasn’t those that put the brakes on Scerri Herrera’s behaviour, even if only temporarily.
Vindicated………….and it’s only the beginning, I guess, D.
But truly, did the judiciary need the commission to tell it that such things are unacceptable? Wouldn’t we call the membership in these social networks by some members of the bench ‘an error of judgment’? How is it that the commission did not include other networks with secret membership in the code of ethics?
Maybe the commission should also be looking at this kind of thing. (Not your blog post, but the magistrate/criminal lawyer “relationship” – for want of a better word to define it.)
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/02/02/the-magistrate-licks-the-criminal-lawyers-butt-on-facebook/
I think the point is much wider. It is the first indication that we have that the Commission is doing SOMETHING about this issue. They have to keep their considerations confidential but it is actually a pretty clear message to the public (not just to the judiciary) that it will not tolerate “impropriety”, with all that implies.
It may not sound terribly dramatic, but what were people expecting?
Let’s not forget that magistrates and judges can only be removed by impeachment so there is not a lot that the Commission can do. This is why public pressure is often the only way to get the judiciary to toe the line they knew was there before they accepted the appointment.
[Daphne – You’re right to point this out, Vanessa. The Commission acted proactively on this one – as far as I know, nobody filed a complaint about magistrates with Facebook accounts, to which they would be obliged to react. So that’s exceptional. Also exceptional is the fact that the Commission issued a statement about it – a ‘public warning’, if you like – when it would ordinarily have communicated privately with the individuals in question.]
I hope this is not all that the Commission for the Administration of Justice intends doing. The issue is not Facebook but what it has helped expose. What about the obvious conflicts of interest – and, perhaps, worse?
Quite true. In fact – ironically – it is thanks to Facebook that this case has been given all this coverage.
…… don’t hold your breath waiting for any outcome of their “investigations” and / or any sanction that may be due, to be willingly made public.
I would feel greatly disturbed to appear before a magistrate or judge who had appeared on Facebook cavorting with someone involved in any case in which I, and the public, had an interest. Even if in actual fact justice were to be done it would not “seem” to be done. It is not only Caesar”s wife that should be above suspicion.
This country is unbelievable, I’m not saying that the rest of the world is some Utopian safe haven free of corruption and malpractice, but we take the cake on this one.
I mean it’s bad enough that the filth that clogs the system on this island is enough to make a sister Mount Maghtab, but come on!
Are these people at THAT stupid?
What worries me is not necessarily that these individuals are conducting a shameful existence in light of the position they hold, but that they’re so stupid they can’t even cover their tracks.
Facebook… come on, I mean what the hell are these people expecting?
I feel sorry for those people who are subject to the authority of an individual who’s that much of an idiot not to be able to tell whether exposing him/herself on a public network is a good idea or not.
Female Lawyers, Magistrates and Judges
Category:
Common Interest – Friends
Description:
A group for us females to discuss and share the challenges of being female in this noble profession.
Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public
This is a Facebook group of female lawyers magistrates and judges from various parts of world, who actually post some very interesting topics.
The problem as I see it is not being on Facebook but leading an indecorous life, which is subsequently reflected on Facebook.
I am sure that more serious magistrates could very well be on Facebook without posting pics of their parties which reek of poor taste and “sleaze”, or for that matter posing in denim miniskirts, simply because if they are serious they should not be at a “sleazy” party nor run around in attire which could put them to ridicule.
With respect to your comment that having a “friends list” is incompatible with being a member of the judiciary. I don’t see any difference between exposing your friends on a Facebook list and wining and dining with them in Malta’s restaurants, taking skiing trips, weekends in Gozo and generally living a normal healthy social life, which even magistrates and judges have a right to.
If, another, less flamboyant magistrate were on Facebook with a list of his or her friends without the extra desperado mid life crisis frolicking, it would have been another kettle of fish and in my opinion, would not have posed any problem.
[Daphne – We’ll have to part company on this one. Malta is an exceptional case because it is the equivalent of a small town. Therefore the odds are much, much higher that one of your ‘friends’ or family or close associates of those ‘friends’, will end up before you in court. Also, the Facebook group you mention is an international one. It is not a Facebook group for magistrate operating in, say, Sheffield, which is already much larger and more populous than Malta.
Magistrates and judges who live elsewhere do not have to deal with these odds. Also, I know through experience that there is a great difference between the behaviour and attitude of the more respectable judges/magistrates and the less respectable ones. Because I am a controversial person and over and above that somebody who writes for the newspapers, I know this through personal experience. Whenever I am invited to a small gathering, like lunch or dinner, where I know that a respectable judge or magistrate is another guest, I always ask my host to let him/her know that I will be there too, because I understand that he/she would almost certainly prefer not to be there at the same table with me, and that I too would be hugely uncomfortable and would prefer not to be at the same table either.
In situations like this, either I or the judge/magistrate will be tactfully indisposed or discover a prior engagement that had been overlooked.
Only once did I ever end up inadvertently at table with a very respectable judge who had recently presided over a really high-profile trial. We were both extremely uncomfortable, conversation was stilted because I took care to avoid all current issues so as not to compromise him, and our host rang the next morning to apologise to us both for throwing us together like that. I said there was no need, because we both knew how to behave.]
Also a Facebook group is not a Facebook page. The former is a group which is focused on a topic, in this case sharing experiences of the female judiciary around the world, an interesting topic, which is moderated and is a ‘legitamite’ topic (pardon the pun). A Facebook page however is a very personal and in this case frivolous page which has cast a bad light on the person in question.
The only part of the warning which disturbs me a bit is, “… as they could be in breach of the Code of Ethics”
‘Could be’? Is the choice of the word ‘could’ an escape clause in disguise?
Such behaviour (in this case especially) DOES breach the code of ethics, so if the warning was to be taken seriously, the correct language should have been used!
1. Ghidli ma min taghmilha, u nghidlek min int; 2. Ma min rajtek xebbahtek; 3. U min jaghmilha maz-zopp, f’gheluq is-sena isir bhalu (no offence intended).
So go some old Maltese sayings.
I cannot concur more with the Commission for the Administration of Justice on the above matter. I actually think that the same rule highlighted by the Commission for the Administration of Justice should apply to all persons who hold a public office, especially officers of the government, cabinet ministers, but also members of parliament.
The fact that a public figure chooses to have or not have specific individuals from the community as friends and then to publish a list of friends, is in my view not a sign of good public conduct by someone on public service. So what if I am not a friend of any specific public officer who may be in charge of decisions that affect me? Is friendship supposed to yield me a benefit?
Moreover, public officers are exposed to personal reputation risk. That is the risk that one’s reputation depends not only on what one does, but also on the behaviour of those one chooses as a circle of friends.
I suspect that Facebook and similar networks, and the concept of the internet as a whole for that matter, bring to the fore a number of ethical issues which still need resolving, and probably need addressing in new codes of ethical conduct.
Normally, codes of conduct for public officers and the professions, clarify that it is not only how one conducts oneself, but also the appearance of one’s behaviour that matter in giving confidence to the public.
Daphne, exactly – this proves my point.
I live very much the same situation. My husband occupies a certain post for which he has to be very careful whom he mixes with. We recently refused to go to a christening because there was going to be a person who has problems with the law.
This is precisely the point – we did not go – so there are no pictures of my husband or myself hanging around this particular person, much less embracing him in a half drunken stupor.
No such photos will ever appear on Facebook BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. If I were a judge and you were to ask to be my Facebook friend, since you’re a journalist and should be able to write freely, which could, in turn, be prejudicial to me, I would write you a polite note saying that given my position and your profession it may not be such a good idea to be Facebook friends – exactly as I would with respect to attending the same dinner or lunch party.
Knowing your place and not feeling so superior that you can get away with anything has nothing to do with Facebook. Moreover even if a judge or magistrate is not on Facebook, as you well know, it does not automatically mean that his debauchery will not end up on Facebook anyway.
I’ve seen many pictures of people who are not on Facebook, on other people’s Facebook pages – including a magistrate – who might I add was behaving respectfully in a photo which showed a group of friends enjoying a fun dinner and not a sleazy party – that my friend – is the difference.
Take care and keep up the good work.
There are matters worse than Facebook.
I will give you an example, which I personally faced a few years back, in the only court case I have ever been involved with in my entire life.
I will limit myself to saying that on a reply filed by my opponent, which was entered into the official file before being passed on to the judge for review, there, in a corner, was a prominent, up-and-rising person’s very readable signature, with the annotation “seen”.
The person in question was not a member of my opponent’s law firm, nor was there any note/advice made to the court that this person was also being officially involved in the case on behalf of my “opponent”.
Turns out the person didn’t have the intention, or slightest interest, to form part of this case.
This sorry attempt by my opponent’s representatives to indirectly influence/put weight on, or whatever was going on in their pea-brains, the case to their favour, made me furious.
I had one foot in the door of the Commission, ready to make an official report against my opponent’s representatives and this person, but I was calmed down by a friend who took it upon himself to “sort out the matter”.
Net result – I ended up receiving an unofficial apology, and asked very nicely not to take the matter further.
It was enough to pacify me then. I was going through enough as it was with the case. And, as I said in another post of mine, I left it at that, because I include myself in the vast majority of citizens who after a certain point, just shut up so as not to make matters worse.
What if it had been a simple phone call instead of a signature ?
I consider myself “lucky” in that what happened to me was something I could actually see.
I shudder to think of all the poor souls in court who have their cases influenced …. and are none the wiser.
These things happen almost everywhere in the world, but in our case we are such a small community, that blind justice for all is an even more impossible utopia to achieve.
Correct me if I’m wrong Daphne, but is that Robert Abela on the right of the photo?
It certainly looks very much like him, and that’s Lydia Abela next to him.
I have had a second look at the photograph on this blog. I strongly disagree with Ginger. The ladies should not expose themselves.
Daph, you should start advertising this as a diet site. X’ cuc hu l-Atkins? Dawn ir-ritratti garantiti li jaqghtulek il-guh.
http://public.di-ve.com/streaming/on_demand_media_streamer.aspx?id=3393&encoding=8&backUrl=streaming%2fon_demand_event_encoding.aspx%3fid%3d3393