Proposed standards commissioner for judiciary could handle public complaints

Citizens could soon be able to directly file a complaint about a judge or magistrate with the newly set-up standards commissioner for the judiciary, according to a new bill being published today.

The bill, first revealed by Times of Malta last week, says the commissioner would investigate alleged ethical breaches by judges and magistrates that can be flagged by members of the public, as well as the justice minister and chief justice.

However, the plan would need to have the support of the opposition benches for the bill to become law since any constitutional amendments require a two-thirds parliamentary majority.

The standards commissioner would be nominated and appointed by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, a judicial commission made up of the President, the Chief Justice, the Chamber of Advocates, judges and magistrates, as well as government and opposition representatives.

Currently, members of the public can file their complaints to either the justice minister or the chief justice, who may then forward the complaint to the Commission. However, this could change, with the public now able to directly file their complaint with the commissioner.

After having investigated the alleged breach of standards, the commissioner would submit their findings to the chief justice and the justice minister, who may then refer the case to the Committee for Judges and Magistrates to decide on the disciplinary measures to be taken.

The bill proposes that the person nominated for the role is a retired judge or magistrate, or else a veteran lawyer who is no longer practicing, the proposal says. They will serve for a three-year term.

Addressing media questions at a press conference on Monday, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard brushed aside criticism that the measure is tantamount to eroding the independence of the judiciary, describing it as “premature”.

“Autonomy and independence will be strengthened,” Attard said, pointing to how the person occupying the role will be appointed by the judiciary itself.

“We are ensuring that citizens who feel aggrieved over the judiciary’s ethical standards can report directly to the commissioner”.  

Last week, reacting to the prospect of a standards commissioner for the judiciary, NGO Repubblika warned that “only members of the judiciary should have the authority to oversee the conduct and discipline of their peers,” expressing fears of external appointees wielding excessive powers.

Judges could be eligible to be made President

The bill also proposes several other measures, from raising the retirement age of members of the judiciary, to bringing the constitutional court up to scratch to cut down on a backlog of cases.

The retirement age for judges and magistrates, currently at 65 (with a possible extension to 68), should rise to 70, the bill proposes, with authorities believed to be concerned over the impending retirement of several top judges.

And judges will now be eligible to be made President, with the bill eliminating an anomaly that prohibited them from being nominated for the role, unlike magistrates.

The bill also introduces a requirement for the sitting chief justice to be consulted on the nomination of their successor, a recommendation first flagged in a European Commission rule of law report.

On the other hand, the bill says that the names of unsuccessful candidates shortlisted by the Judicial Appointments Committee, which appoints new judges and magistrates, will no longer be made public.

“This was creating discomfort among candidates who applied, exposing their hands to their employers,” Attard said at a press conference on Monday morning.

Instead, the names of unsuccessful candidates will be kept on a register that is made available to the members of the committee, as well as the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, to scrutinise.

The bill will also set up new sections in the constitutional courts, mirroring a similar move previously made in the civil courts, in the hope of cutting down on an ever-rising backlog of cases.

“In 2022, the courts had a backlog of 178 pending appeals,” Attard said. “This February, this number is up to 323”.

Attard pointed to comments made by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, who argued for the need for lawmakers to intervene to address the matter.