Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono has stressed his call for a separation of the roles of judicial and inquiring magistrates.

The motion is in line with the PN’s slogan of justice and freedom. The party needed to re-discover itself in these two roles

Introducing his 24-point private justice reform motion, he told Parliament yesterday that the separation of the inquiring and judicial aspects in the criminal court had to be treated with urgency. Inquiring magistrates should be specialised in that line of work while magistrates in court should focus exclusively on sitting in judgement.

He said it was a legal heresy to have an inquiring magistrate working alongside the police in investigations and then to sit in judgement. This must stop immediately.

At the opening of his speech Dr Debono also added a call for the setting up of a Supreme Court or equivalent and a study on how the jury system could be improved.

He said a reform was needed in court on the appointment of court experts who needed to be suitably qualified. Parties should also be allowed to produce their own experts.

He referred to delays in court and said that one had to look at the system holistically. Administrative back-up was needed to speed up proceedings. He described the PA system in the courts as archaic and called for changes in the legal notice on the recording of proceedings.

Dr Debono spoke at length on a number of reforms which he said were introduced half-heartedly. There was a lot of procrastination in implementing the right to legal assistance before and during interrogation when the legislation was approved six years ago. The law was still not in line with decisions taken in Strasbourg. Although the institution of parole had been approved four years ago, the necessary structures were still not in place and entitled prisoners were denied this right.

The Whistleblower Act needed to be refined because it was inadequate. No persons had been as yet been listed in the Minors’ Offenders Register four months after the relative law had been approved.

Dr Debono said he had full confidence in the Police Commissioner but called for the setting-up of a task force to audit the whole system and find ways for moving forward. Progress had been registered over the last 20 years but more resources were needed while attitudes had to change.

There was a need to separate the prosecuting and investigative aspects of the force. The Bill on the unionisation of police members was inadequate and had been criticised by foreign police associations. The issues of arrears and payment for extra hours worked by police officers had been tackled too late and too little had been achieved.

It was a mistake that competent police officers had left the force. There was the need to strengthen the system so as to maximise the work performed by police officers. It was also worrying that three police officers had been found guilty of drug trafficking over the last 10 years.

He called also for reconsideration of the proposal that retired policemen could commute their pension to a lump sum. There was also the need of a national conference on criminal justice, as suggested in an editorial of The Times. The police force had still not given enough importance to intelligence policing. Investment in forensic equipment was needed. The forensic laboratory was inexistent in November 2011.

Dr Debono said that his motion was in line with the PN’s slogan of justice and freedom and added that the party needed to re-discover itself in these two roles. He paid homage to the late Professor Guido de Marco, who he said gave valuable contribution to justice and home affairs during his tenure of the portfolios.

He said that since he presented the motion, the Prime Minister had separated the justice and home affairs portfolios and took this as a sign that the government was injecting new energy to reform the sectors.

The right to the presence of a lawyer during interrogation of suspects by the police was one of the most important reforms in this legislature.

The lawyer’s presence during such interrogations should be passive but was nonetheless necessary to ensure that procedures moved in line with legislation.

With regard to disclosure, although the amendments were in the right direction, they were half-hearted and could prove to be dangerous. Lawyers deserved to have an idea of the evidence which police held in order to carry out their work properly.

He believed it was time to introduce video recording during interrogations.

Dr Debono said that it was important to review the role and powers of the Attorney General. The AG needed to give reasons for his decisions especially in cases where an accused was committed to trial by jury and another was sent before the lower courts.

A radical reform of the criminal code was required especially with regard to the schedule of penalties, which at present was very confusing.

A sentencing policy needed to be set up and there needed to be a review of how bail was granted. Revision of bail decisions needed to be broadened, and review decisions should not be taken before the same magistrates who took the original decision.

There should be the introduction of electronic tagging. This would remove the need for some people to be kept in prison.

It did not make sense that people on bail or on suspended sentences were taken to prison during court break sessions. The courts should be equipped with a suitable location to accommodate such people.

There needed to be a revision of the legal aid system to ensure proper defence for those who could not afford a lawyer.

With regard to the retirement age of members of the judiciary, he believed this was unjust and had led to the loss of competent members of the Bench.