Public authorities should “clearly and unequivocally” respect and support the law courts by ensuring that court decisions and orders are not hampered, defied or ignored, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti said on Tuesday.
“I need not speak more clearly about this,” said the Chief Justice, making specific reference to “orders by the Constitutional Court to effect changes to the laws.”
Such orders, he said, were to be followed not out of a sense of bowing to court orders but to fully safeguard the interests of the Maltese state.
When one of the pillars of democracy was not afforded adequate protection or full respect from those who ultimately had the duty and interest to strengthen democracy, there were “negative consequences among us and in the eyes of other democracies,” he said.
"Weigh your words"
Speaking during a ceremony to mark the start of the forensic year, the chief justice said constructive criticism was healthy. But that could not be achieved through words and actions which served no purpose other than to cast shadows needlessly and with no justification.
All those who wielded power or attracted a wide audience should carefully weigh their words and actions so as not to sow mistrust and negatively impact the administration of justice.
The judiciary should only focus on what was right and just, without being swayed by the financial, political or social power of any party involved in the proceedings.
Personal life of judges, magistrates
Mr Justice Chetcuti said those called to the Bench should not only show legal, practical and human maturity in their judgments and orders but should also manifest an impeccable and humble attitude.
Their personal life should not cast any shadow upon their public role or upon the judiciary in general.
But for them to function in a serene manner, it was equally important for all those holding some form of public power to weigh their words and actions carefully so as not to sow mistrust or taint public trust in the judicial system.
Facts and figures
The chief justice’s speech touched upon the various courts making up the judicial system, focusing on the positive results achieved over the past year and making suggestions for further improvement.
Out of the 3000 or so civil and commercial appeals filed since 2020, 600 were still pending and nearing judgment.
That, the chief justice said, was a clear example of how the pooling of efforts by the judiciary, court staff together with ministerial and parliamentary cooperation, success in this field was achieved.
Over the past ten months, 600 constitutional cases were filed.
Plans for Commercial Court welcomed
The chief justice said the government’s plans to set up a Commercial Court, having its own premises and administration, were welcome.
Such an efficient and specialized court would buttress the country’s economy.
Out of 2,100 civil and constitutional cases filed last year, 2000 were decided, some 200 by each judge. Appointing two other judges to the civil courts would help reduce the workload and the pressure.
As for the Criminal Courts, there were currently 150 pending trials to be heard in two jury halls.
The chief justice said the time was ripe to consider a radical change in the system to determine which cases were to go to trial by jury and which may be decided by a judge. And there should also be judges to preside only over trials.
While praising the recent move to appoint a court attorney for each magistrate, thus increasing the output by the Magistrates’ Courts, the chief justice underlined the fact that staff shortages in the criminal courts were sorely felt this year.
Clerks, marshals, court assistants and transcribers ought to be full-timers and well trained in criminal procedure, he said. Shortcomings in this respect could spell injustices with the accused and society in general.
Inquiring magistrates still without offices, staff
The chief justice said the number of magisterial inquiries, including high-profile ones, was on the rise.
The appointment of four magistrates to handle only inquiries was doubtlessly a step in the right.
That was almost a year ago. But since then, those magistrates had not yet been provided with workspace and permanent staff.
It was only because they were dedicated to serve justice that these magistrates functioned at all.
Inquiring magistrates were an integral part of the courts and they meriting equal respect and treatment like all other members of the judiciary.
Another sensitive issue concerned court experts, tasked with preparing specialized reports to assist magistrates in the search for the truth.
Crimes, particularly white collar crimes, were on the rise. Related investigations call for expertise in IT and AI.
But there were three obstacles in this regard, said the chief justice.
Private experts were limited in number and inundated with court work.
Others steered clear of court work since certain notorious cases attracted negative publicity.
Moreover, certain expertise was not available locally and thus there was no option but to source foreign experts.
Recent criticism about fees paid to these experts was, however, unjust.
Fees were not capped and each fee was authorized by courts’ administration.
These expenses were not capricious but necessary to draw up a proper report to address the subject of the magisterial investigation and to bring all evidence both for and against the defendant.
The ceremony was also addressed by Peter Fenech, president of the Chamber of Advocates.
He said that “planned management” rather than “management by crises” should be the way forward in addressing problems and initiatives in the justice sector.
All those involved in the sector ought to show courage to do what was necessary, beyond pressure exerted by different sectoral interests and also political pressure.
Calling to mind the proposal for Justice 2030 put forward by the Chamber last year, Fenech pointed out that although the framework of ideas was put together and passed on to the authorities, unfortunately so far no progress was registered.
Fenech referred to the pressure and increased workload placed upon the courts as a result of the “strong influx of population.”
This issue deserved to be analyzed and considered in future plans for the justice sector, he said.
The time was ripe to beef up the resources of each member of the judiciary, providing them with competent staff.
The recent move to include a court attorney on every magistrate’s team, was a welcome move and a positive step but that alone was not enough.
Discipline was also important.
Although most members of the judiciary all put in an effort, not all made it to the expected efficiency level.
A mere “handful” were constantly mentioned for not fulfilling their judicial duties satisfactorily.
This was a hot topic, drawing public interest, and could not be ignored, Fenech said.
Complaints about these few members of the judiciary touched upon the way court hearings were handled, delays in delivering simple decrees or late delivery of judgments for no valid reason or lack of respect towards lawyers and the general public.
All the good work done by the judiciary was undermined by these few, tarnishing the reputation of all those working in the justice sector.
The Chamber suggested setting up a system, independent of the judiciary, to receive complaints in this respect.
Discipline, he said, applied also to lawyers.
Making a letter of engagement mandatory would render lawyers and their services more professional.
But the “elephant in the room” related to “inadequate tariffs” which were the root of problems concerning lawyers.
Lawyers' tariffs
The need for tariffs to be revised could no longer be avoided.
No lawyer or law firm “can abide by existing tariffs because if that were so, they would be better off to shut down office,” said Fenech, pointing out further that court experts were generally paid “five or more times” more than a lawyer for “a few hours of work.”
The current system made it difficult for litigation lawyers to recoup legal expenses forked out throughout the years-long duration of a case. In the end, the lawyer would likely get a “few hundreds of euro according to the tariffs.”
It was time to introduce a billing calculator like that applicable to notaries.
Restructuring the law course at University was another issue that needed attention to ensure that this course did not attract “those who simply had no other course to follow.”
It was time to consider upping the bar on entry requirements and to discuss the issue of mature students.
And those applying for an advocate’s warrant must truly have done a year’s practice in the field, Fenech said.