Ah, but Judge Herrera set his daughter a different example to Gavin's father
It wasn't everybody who had the benefit of a good example
This is Labour MP Gavin Gulia, interviewed in Malta Today (8 September 2002):
“My official political affiliation started quite late in my life, in 1995.
This is because my father Oliver and my uncle Wallace were judges of the austere old school.
Consequently, until they resigned, our lives were somewhat influenced by their very private and withdrawn lifestyle, which they deemed necessary to be able to carry out their duties effectively.
Involvement in politics until their withdrawal was a definite no-no. Hence my political hibernation.
My father’s lifestyle was so austere that he didn’t have any friends to speak of.”
Yes, and then the rot set in. The policing system for magistrates and judges, if it can be described as such, is based on the assumption that all those appointed to the bench would be fine, upstanding, honourable and dignified. It does not allow for the appointment to the bench of those who are not. It lacks the requisite ‘coping mechanisms’ to deal with poorly chosen appointees.
Malta is tiny and its judiciary is far from numerous. Yet in the last few years we have had this track record: one appeals court judge and a chief justice jailed for bribery, one failed attempt to impeach a magistrate (Labour refused to cooperate), one failed attempt to impeach a judge (Labour refused to cooperate), at least two magistrates who appear to have been relieved of most of their duties because of personal problems, one of which is said to involve alcoholism, and now the latest shenanigans involving Magistrate Herrera – though quite frankly, there is nothing ‘now’ about it at all.
That’s very impressive.
It’s quite clear from this mess that the entire system needs a rigorous overhaul. The first thing to go should be the discretionary approach to the appointment of magistrates and judges. Nominations for these positions should be made public and subject to public scrutiny.
If this had been done, Noel Arrigo would never have been made a judge. As it happened, the scrutiny – in parliament – took place after his appointment was announced and when it was too late to do anything about it. News of his heavy debts and unpaid bills emerged only at that stage, though it must be said that there were plenty who knew already about his financial woes and cavalier attitude to meeting his debts.
It is clear, too, that the Commission for the Administration of Justice, for all its good intentions, does not have the wherewithal to be proactive.
If there were a proper policing system for the judiciary, with the power to investigate or to instruct the relevant authorities (tax, the police) to investigate, then it would have been able to do something about Patrick Vella long before he was caught taking that one bribe.
He has no family money or inherited wealth to speak of, is married to a woman with no family money or inherited wealth and who didn’t work, his salary was fixed and published and judges are barred from moonlighting or second jobs, and yet they lived in a large villa with grounds in the most expensive part of San Pawl tat-Targa. I often used to remark on this and wonder how nobody else seemed to notice the very obvious anomaly between the judge’s income and his lifestyle.
And that brings me to the question as to whether that judge’s assets were looked into after he was jailed for bribery. Was his financial situation closely inspected, with questions asked as to where he got the money for this, that and the other?
It’s amusing, isn’t it. Those who are found guilty of drug trafficking have all their assets seized on the assumption that they are ill-gotten gains. But judges jailed for taking bribes are allowed to keep their assets, because the assumption is that they have taken only the one bribe.
There’s not much you can buy with a single bribe, but lots of bribes buy an entire lifestyle – though it’s pointless sounding the alarm if there’s nobody around to answer it.
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Who in heaven’s name would open the proverbial can of worms – and worms with teeth at that? No, I think the can will remain firmly shut for all time.
It is only when one of the worms is stupid enough to get out on his own, that it is either put back in with kid gloves (lest it bites), but never squashed.
That’s why the public goes into a gleeful frenzy when you (Daphne) extract a worm from the can – because those who should do so will never admit that the can even exists.
With questions asked as to where he got the money for this, that and the other?
Why don’t we put this question to all the politicians also, how did you buy that penthouse, that company etc.
I agree with you completely. That’s being transparent and accountable.
Shame. How do these people judge others with a straight face?
Keep it up, Daphne. We need articles like this with the hope that some time action will begin to be taken. This is only the tip of the iceberg of Maltese tangentopoli.
So right Joe. Daphne always supports her articles, statements etc with hard facts, very often backed by research which she conducts meticulously. Her scrutinising of years-old issues of newspapers, as well as her own knowledge of current and past ‘affairs’ is second to none.
Some readers occasionally have a problem with her hard-hitting style of reporting or indeed her style in analysing an issue. But ultimately what is admirable is the courage she finds to open the proverbial can of worms, which sadly, most journalists do not have the guts to do.
Love her or hate her, the fact that she has survived three prime ministers and still has a huge following says a lot.
I totally agree with Tony Pace.
It is such a shame that some members of the Maltese judiciary are bringing down the good standing of the entire judicial system. I remember Judge Wallace Gulia very well, and “upright” doesn’t go halfway to describing how respectable he was, albeit with a great sense of humour and obvious joie de vivre.
There are still some very respectable magistrates and judges in Malta but the risk for them is that they will be classed with the rest of this lot – “ma min rajtek xebbahtek”.
Sometimes it feels as though we are living in a society made up of arrogant children. Where have the grown ups gone? Where are those who should be setting the example?
And this applies to society in general – nobody wants to grow up or to face up to their responsibilities. Nobody wants to live in the style which is congruent to their age, their office, their responsibilities, their financial means, their status, and generally, with society’s expectations.
I sometimes get the feeling that most middle-aged people seem to have forgotten they’re actually living in one! Suffice it to say that statistics show consumption of cocaine is highest in the age bracket 35 to 50.
And the press keep silent, even the pompous MaltaToday/Illum.
They don’t keep silent. They point in the wrong direction. Which is worse?
I agree that Daphne is not hesitant in raising such matters but can we all admit that here on this island nothing changes?
A bit of a noise but then everything wanes away.
There’s a lot of noise about ‘our’ cathedral and ‘our’ Bahrija. There’s very little noise about the reliability and impartiality of our courts.
Eddie appointed Noel Arrigo. Had you commented at that stage?
[Daphne – Who’s Eddie: the cat’s father? Joe Fenech appointed him. And yes, I did have a great deal to say.]
It is always easy to criticise with hindsight and to criticize a person who is now dead and can’t reply.
Besides, Dr Arrigo was later apointed Chief Justice. I think the Justice Minister then was not the same late minister who appointed him as a judge.
I would not describe the actions of Dr Gulia’s father and uncle as “austere old school”. I think that they upheld their position with so much dignity and that they were so keen on being being impartial, as a judge should be, that they did not want the slightest thing to taint the performance of their duties. They should be held up as a much-needed example for today’s generation.
And I agree with you. That’s the way it should be. And they were two of the most respected judges in Malta.
Patrick Vella wasn’t always on a judge’s salary.
[Daphne – That’s right. He was on a magistrate’s salary for many years before that: in other words, an even lower one.]
I’m talking about even before that!
[Daphne – He has been in the judicial system (or out of it pending trial and then in prison) for almost three decades, David. Before that he was just an ordinary lawyer working in the far-from-booming economy under Labour. If he were doing well as a lawyer at the time he would never have accepted the post of magistrate, because the salary was miserable back then and he had a family to support. ]
“He has been in the judicial system (or out of it pending trial and then in prison) for almost three decades, ”
Yes, more or less 25, after his wife died.
” Before that he was just an ordinary lawyer working in the far-from-booming economy under Labour” – less booming for most, more for a few!
But things change in so many ways that are impossible to predict, but yet come to pass, especially if the stronger link in a chain disappears!
[Daphne – X’misteri, David.]
What’s life without a few mysteries – but I know what I’m saying.
Alas, life can sometimes throw a devastating and unpredictable spanner in the works, and the weaker individuals do not know how to cope!
Maybe you’d care to enlighten us, David, after throwing in so many pointless clangers?
Sorry Grezz, don’t know you!
Point being that income before entering the judiciary was not necessarily “just an ordinary lawyer working in the far-from-booming economy under Labour.”
“If he were doing well as a lawyer at the time he would never have accepted the post of magistrate, because the salary was miserable back then and he had a family to support.”
Yes, but circumstances change, and he was not the only “breadwinner” before, and not necessarily the driving force.
Plus, unlike judges and magistrates, lawyers are allowed to moonlight!
OK, no more “pointless clangers”.
@Kevin, nothing will EVER change until the electorate grows up!
Wasn’t this what Evarist Bartolo used to say, that the more things change, the more they stay the same?
[Daphne – That quote is not attributable to Evarist Bartolo. He merely repeats it. It is a translation – as might be obvious, because it certainly doesn’t sound English – of the French saying ‘Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose’ (sorry, but I don’t have the patience to add the trimmings to those letters). It appears to have been used first in print by the French novelist Alphonse Karr, in the 19th century. George Bernard Shaw picked it up for his Revolutionist’s Handbook, published in 1903. After that, it began to crop up in books of proverbs and popular sayings. It is actually a dreadful cliche – very tedious.]
If Joseph Muscat really means business, he should do a Jason Micallef sequel with Anglu Farrugia as the main protagonist.
Farrugia should be replaced by Gulia, as the former is anything but progressive or moderate (how can an ex cop – especially a front runner in the good old Pullicino brigade – be progressive or moderate?) while the latter comes across as being moderate.
There are very few decent elements in our political parties today. Let’s hope that the party leaders will learn how to maximise on these resources.
In Muscat’s case, this is simply not happening.
Daphne is sounding the alarm but no-one is answering. This is what I find most alarming. It is bad enough that that a blind eye is (wrongly) turned on many an occasion to the detriment of our society.
However, to ignore the alarm when it is so loudly sounded makes those who should be taking action accomplices to this behaviour. This was the perfect opportunity for the President to be objective and act in the interest of the country as a whole. In not taking action, the President is failing us and much as I would have hoped otherwise, is showing his true colours.
Separately to the above, his daughter-in-law should have waited before getting so involved in politics, as Gavin Gulia did. She is certainly young enough. But it seems that discretion is easily overpowered by ambition and enough is never enough for some.
It is important that the police section employs auditors (or whatever) who will at least prepare reports on the financial findings – whether this report is acted on or not is another question.
This is an opportunity for Joseph Muscat to show that his party really is different to what it was in the past.
Labour had refused to cooperate for the impeachment of Judge Anton Depasquale.
[Daphne – Labour also refused to cooperate for the impeachment of Magistrate Carol Peralta.]
Judge Depasquale’s actions were a despicable abuse of position and public funds and yet Labour did not cooperate to remove him. The message to the judiciary given was loud and clear – however badly you behave you are untouchable.
This reflected badly on Labour. Oppose when there is need to oppose but support the government of the day when this is in the interest of the country.
This is Joseph Muscat’s opportunity to make amends and he will win lots of brownie points with floating voters if he had to do so.
[Daphne – But he won’t. The magistrate’s brother is one of his key politicians, and she herself is a great friend of the party and its media machine.]
Grazzi tassew Daphne talli bil-kitba tieghek taghraf tohloq diskussjoni fil-pajjiz li hafna gurnalisti mhallsin ma humiex kapaci jew joqghodu lura milli jiktbu dwar.
Fuq il-kaz tal-gudikanti l-akbar problema li nara hija ta’ kif jigu mahtura. Ma hemmx indagar fuqhom qabel ma jigu appuntati. Meta jigu appuntati xejn u hadd ma jista nnehihom minn hemm sa l-eta’ tal-penzjoni hlief b’zewg terzi tal-membri parlamentari. Haga li hi kwazi impossibli.
Allura bl-istess mizura ta’ kif jigu imnehhija ghaliex meta jinhatru ghal fuq il-bank tal-gudikatura ikun hemm l-istess formula bejn il-membri parlamentari. Halli b’hekk ikun hemm aktar trasparenza u jekk wara jigri li jkun hemm xi nuqqasijiet minn naha tal-gudikant ikun aktar facli li jitnehha.
Jien nixtieq inkun naf min hatar lill-imhallfin Noel Arrigo u Patrick Vella u lill-magistrat Consuello Scerri Herrera ghandux illum ihossu umli u responsabbli bizzejjed biex jidher quddiem il-poplu Malti u jghidluli kien zbalja bl-ghazla li kien ghamel, u johloq dibattitu nazzjonali ta’ kif ghal futur ghandhom jinhatru l-membri tal-gudikatura.
B’hekk forsi terga tintrebah lura l-fiducja fil-Qrati taghna.
Yet again, another very interesting and well-thought-out blog-post. Well done, D.
The Maltese ruling class.
So, do you think Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour violates the judiciary’s code of ethics?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100228/letters/medias-duty-to-investigate
on a completely different note….
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100228/local/zarb-calls-on-mps-not-to-betray-the-people-in-tariffs-vote-tomorrow
“Mr Zarb said MPs would vote according to their conscience and MPs who were traitors of the people would be remembered.”
Traitors of the people? Was watching a programme on BBC World this morning called “Stalin’s Back”. Stalin’s not the only nightmare attempting a comeback, it would seem. And that’s a phrase he’d have enjoyed too. “Traitors of the people”……..
One should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. The real independence of the judiciary is one of the fundamental tenets of parliamentary democracy.
Contrary to what you state, the appointment of members of the judiciary is not subject to any public or parliamentary scrutiny.
[Daphne – That’s what I wrote: that these appointments are NOT subject to public scrutiny but that they should be. People out there might know things that cabinet ministers don’t. That was certainly the case with Noel Arrigo.]
It is a cabinet decision and it is only cabinet which should assume responsibility for any mistaken appointments over the past decades.
Removing a member of the judiciary from office is understandably complicated and this has been rendered even more so by the politicisation that was palpable in the sole instance when a resolution to this effect was presented in parliament.
[Daphne – There were two instances, actually, but only one made it to parliament. The attempt to impeach Carol Peralta was sabotaged before it got there.]
Cabinet should also assume responsibility for the less than stellar conditions that are enjoyed by members of the judiciary. Not only does the Chairman of MEPA get more than twice the salary of the Chief Justice but a substantial part of the remuneration of the members of the judiciary is in the form of allowances that are not protected by the Constitution and can be withdrawn by the Executive.
Even more preoccupying is the practice of appointing retired members of the judiciary to various offices upon retirement in order to supplant their measly pensions. This practice can undermine the independence of the judiciary as it makes its members dependent on the government’s pleasure for such appointments.
[Daphne – I agree with you here.]
Improving the financial conditions of the judiciary is no guarantee that there won’t be problems in the future. However, we cannot talk of an independent judiciary when its members depend on the government for decent remuneration.
Thus, the provisions in the Constitution regarding the appointment and removal of members of the judiciary as well as the way they are remunerated are ripe for a radical overhaul. Let’s hope the Select Committee on Constitutional Change comes up with something concrete to address these concerns.
Let me remind one and all that Dr Andre’ Camilleri underwent public scrutiny from all parts of the system. There never was a magistrate or judge who underwent such thorough scrutiny, following the judges’ scandal. That’s what should be done in the future. A thorough public scrutiny by the Commission for the Adminsitration of Justice.
It would appear that you do not know that the final say re Judge`s appointments is that of the Prime Minister, at that time a certain Edward Fenech Adami.
p.s. I`m amazed you already forgot who Eddie is ! Shame on you !
[Daphne – The appointment is proposed by the minister of justice and approved by the cabinet as a whole. The responsibility for Noel Arrigo is therefore collective, but rests mainly with a former minister who has since died. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the cat’s mother/father reference. This is merely a reminder to those with poor manners not to refer to somebody by their first name or as ‘she’/’he’.]
Stephen – it seems to me that you want to pillory Eddie Fenech Adami for appointing these judges to the bench. Sorry mate you’re hitting the wrong tree. Let’s for arguments’ sake say that it is the PM who submits names for the bench, as he did in the case of Dr Andre’ Camilleri. Still it is the Commission for the Administration of Justice which decides on whether or not they are accepted. It was Dr Fenech Adami who submitted Dr. Camilleri’s name only to have him rejected by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, not because of any misdeed or character flaw or anything of the sort, but because, or so it was claimed, he did not have the required 12 years of experience in court. So the PM is not the last word about appointments.
We have 19 magistrates and 20 judges. At least 6 have lost brownie points. That makes 15% of the bench – 20% if you count the two who have been relieved of most of their duties.
One more messing up would take the total to 23%. That’s pretty impressive.
And Malta Today still doesn’t think we have a problem.
You should be more careful in your choice of words. The Commission for the Administration of Justice did not find that prima facie Magistrate Peralta had a case to answer and thus, no resolution was presented in parliament. I would not call such a finding, whether correct or not, as sabotage. And it is unfair and incorrect to state that the Labour Party did not co-operate in impeachment proceedings that did not take place. This is a complelety different scenario from the Depasquale case.
It is true that ministers of justice propose to cabinet nominations for the judiciary. But the final word lies with cabinet. There have been instances where lawyers nominated by Joe Fenech who you happen to mention were not accepted by cabinet. Thus, cabinet is collectively responsible for the mishaps we are all aware of – as it always is, in any case.
When you stated “If this had been done, Noel Arrigo would never have been made a judge. As it happened, the scrutiny – in parliament – took place after his appointment was announced and when it was too late to do anything about it” one takes it that there is parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments. There is none and we are on the same wavelength that there should be.
[Daphne – Please read that sentence again. Scrutiny did take place, in parliament, after the appointment. It was not scheduled scrutiny, and it was post facto and therefore pointless, but it was scrutiny nonetheless.]
A possible solution would be that nominations be made by the President of the Republic on the advice of the Commission for the Administration of Justice and subsequently, approved by Cabinet and Parliament.
Consuelo Scerri Herrera should resign for the following reasons.
1. She has lost all moral authority. Anyone who appears before her in court will feel cheated of his right to a fair hearing. This is the true meaning of “justice must not only be done, but BE SEEN to be done.” After all this, how can any decent citizen feel that justice is being done and IS SEEN to be done when this magistrate has completely lost her dignity?
2. Police investigations will not restore her dignity. Dignity is like one’s maidenhead. Once you’ve lost it, there’s no getting it back.
3. She tarnishes the rest of the judiciary. Judges and magistrates who behave well are embarrassed by association, in the eyes of the public.
4. Furthermore, brushing shoulders with prominent members of the Labour Party has pulverized any pretence of political impartiality.
5. Magistrate Scerri Herrera presided over a criminal case against her lover’s brother, finding him not guilty. This case in itself is enough to warrant her immediate resignation.
The Commission for the Administration of Justice holds its proceedings in camera, which makes sense, but it should be wholly answerable and accountable to the public. One therefore expects that should the magistrate insist on keeping her position – as Judges Arrigo and Vella tried to do at first – then the Commission should deliberate in camera, but give out a strong indication of the only dignified way forward in public, thereby putting enormous pressure on the person in question to do the honourable thing.
Members of the judiciary are called Your Honour because they are expected to behave honourably in all circumstances.
Failure to do so will weaken the fabric of society and the proper functioning of one of the three organs of the state, the judiciary. This organ is sine qua non for the health and well-being of society, as it forms an integral part of the checks and balances system of any society and its government. If this organ is damaged, the rest of the body politic will suffer.
Historically – as the writings of Mr Justice Giovanni Bonello show – the Maltese have always looked to the judiciary as their champions. Should the Maltese cease to view this class as its protector, then society is in for serious turmoil.
For the public good, Dr Scerri Herrera, please resign. You will save yourself more embarrassment, and Maltese society more needless tensions and anxiety.
@Banquo,
prosit. Print it and send it post-haste to the Commission.
You’ve done their job.
Daphne,
Consuelo should do the decent thing and resign, but I doubt that will happen. If she follows in the footsteps of the emeritus Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, she will probably be appointed as the Maltese judge in the European Court of Human Rights. You will recall the instance when the great philospher of law/judge JoJo Mifsud Bonnici (who is so keen to appear on television and give comments to Malta Today) condemned a court employee for contempt of court and sent him to jail.
The wise judge was then elevated to the Court of Appeal and next he was to be found dispensing human rights in the European Court. Maybe Joseph Muscat if he comes to power will continue this farce and appoint Consuelo as the Maltese judge in Strasbourg.
What do you mean ‘maybe’?
That’s the plan.
@ Tony Pace
Thank you. I am sure that members of the Commission read this blog. I am also sure that the vast majority of lawyers are of the same opinion: Dr Scerri Herrera should resign. Forthwith.
This is a very sad page in the history of the administration of justice in Malta. The sooner a new page is begun, the better.
Readers of this blog might like to be informed that members of the public may write to the Commission for the Administration of Justice to lodge complaints. Perhaps, if a chorus of voices is raised clamouring for Dr Scerri Herrera’s resignation, she might wish to do so before the Commission arrives at a final decision.
Because, in the ultimate analysis, there seem to be only three possible scenarios.
1. The Commission finds nothing objectionable in Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour.
2. The Commission finds that Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s behaviour is objectionable and suggests steps to be taken.
3. Magistrate Scerri Herrera seeks a face-saving way out and resigns of her own accord (most unlikely).
If 1. were to happen, the judiciary and attendant state machinery will lose heavily in the credibility stakes.
If 2. were to happen, Magistrate Scerri Herrera might ignore the Commission’s words and stay on all the same. After all, there is nothing to stop her except impeachment, and that’s never going to happen.
Daphne,
May I congratulate you on exposing the ugly things that go on in some parts of the Maltese judicial system; no one before you ever dared to take on such well-connected people.
I would suggest that someone should write a magnum opus on the Maltese judiciary – past and present. I am sure it will be a best-seller. Such a definitive work should also be compulsory reading for all first-year law students in Malta.
Daphne,
Sorry I forgot to ask: is there any chance of letting your readers see a picture of Consuelo posing with the wardrobe on the Antiques Roadshow?
[Daphne – Oh, that was years ago.]