Members of the judiciary sometimes found themselves in a situation where owing to the volume of work, they were unable to function serenely, new judge Josette Demicoli said on Thursday.

She was delivering an address from the Bench at her first sitting since she was promoted from magistrate. 

The courts, she observed, were often criticised for delays, and everybody agreed that justice had to be administered as quickly as possible.

But to achieve that goal, judges and magistrates needed a proper staff complement.

Certain members of the judiciary lacked a deputy registrar and other staff, she said, and the staff needed constant training to be properly updated.

Difficulties with the preparation of transcripts of testimonies were another hurdle, as was the lack of staff in the court registry, resulting in further delays.

The judge said that the number of courtrooms was also not enough to cope with the workload and sittings were sometimes cancelled because space was not available.

No distinction between judges, magistrates

Furthermore, given the voluminous and complex workload of magistrates, which had grown at an alarming rate, there was no longer any room for the current distinction between magistrates and judges, the new judge said. 

Magistrates, like judges, were called upon to judge, having to deal with complicated and technical inquiries while juggling all other cases that “pour in.”

Magistrates, like judges, also deserved to be assisted by a court attorney, the judge added, stressing that magistrates should not be deemed as inferior to judges.

Drawing from her years of experience as magistrate, judge Demicoli said that nowadays there seemed to be a lack of respect, witnessed also in the attitude of certain lawyers among themselves as well as towards the courts and their staff.

Certain comments on social media were unjustified and journalists too, while exercising their right to freedom of expression, needed to make sure that reports were based on well-checked facts.

Personal opinions expressed by members of the judiciary

The special sitting was also addressed by Louis de Gabriele, president of the Chamber of Advocates, who expressed “disappointment and concern” over instances where a member of the judiciary 'took the liberty' of sending out a message to the public or the legislator, expressing a personal opinion as though that were inherent in the duties of office.

It was an “important legacy and tradition” that the courts and the members of the judiciary adopted good measure and judgment in their behaviour, not expressing personal views when performing their duties, he stressed. 

They also refrained from communicating with the media even when they were targeted by criticism, sometimes even unjustly.

This tradition was founded upon ethical principles which applied as much for the present as they did in the past and reflected the serious nature, good measure and above all, the respect, towards the office of judge or magistrate.

The courts, he said, had the duty to apply laws which the political class deemed appropriate in a modern democracy and, if anything, those laws were to deliver necessary messages to society, Dr de Gabriele said.

He too spoke about the “perennial issue of court delays,” saying this was not a recent phenomenon but stemmed from a lack of timely interventions over the past 25 years.

No one could now expect a fast and comprehensive solution to the problem.

Efficiency also depended on the resources available, and the courts were still functioning within an infrastructure and framework based on systems which were never intended for such a volume of cases. 

He too complained of a  serious lack of resources, particularly personnel.

Although short-term measures could help resolve current bottlenecks, long term planning was necessary.

A joint effort was needed among all stakeholders to map out “a studied and comprehensive plan of reforms reflecting a clear strategy.”