My learned colleague and member of Parliament, José Herrera, publicly took to task the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the arbitrary capping of fees for court experts. The issue, he claims, is a hidden agenda through which experts will be handpicked by the administration.
His comments are a cause for concern and I feel he can do much more as a member of Parliament to illuminate us members of the legal profession and, why not, after all, the public. But to this we will get later.
As my colleague explained, court experts are nominated by magistrates to participate in an inquiry. Magistrates are free to nominate anyone they wish, no questions asked. This has been the practice for years.
Dr Herrera raises concern that any intervention by the government to change this system would be greatly reducing if not extinguishing the independence of the judiciary. On this I have my strong reservations; an expert is there to do his job independently of the wishes of a magistrate or government of the day. I take objection at this comment since it leads one to conclude that all other lawyers, those presently not appointed as court experts, are not loyal to the oath they have taken.
Recently we became aware, as mentioned by Dr Herrera himself in his article, of more stringent taxing of fees by the court registrar. Why? Is there some truth in the rumours circulating at the law courts that a selected few lawyers and court experts are on a high through this uncontrolled direct engagement. Is there truth in the rumour that these few selected earn tens of thousands of liri every year through this system? Who are these few? Do we have a right to know once these are paid from public funds? Why and how are they nominated as experts and do they have some special training which other lawyers do not have?
The article instils doubts which politicians like to tread on. I prefer facts and encourage my colleague to get down to brass tacks. Go ahead and ask the question in Parliament, a privilege which you have, a medium for the truth more powerful than newspapers, which will clarify why the determination of these fees by the registrar of courts is being done with such stringency.
Furthermore, the argument that any rota-based list of experts may lead to the conclusion that they are never totally independent from the administration of the day is defeated by his own reference to the judiciary as independent. Are they not nominated by the government of the day?
Let me be clear in my opinion: if there is abuse it should be tackled. There is only one way to know this, either my colleague asks the appropriate questions in Parliament, or my other learned colleague puts pen to paper and clarifies whether the rumours are more than rumours and in that scenario intervention is not optional but obligatory in the public interest.
(This letter is written in my personal capacity.)