That justice may be done

The judicial system is a dynamic organisation. Like a human being undertaking treatment, the therapy may not always be painless. Return to good health justifies its use.

Some days ago The Times carried an article by my colleague Josè Herrera criticising the government's attempts to rehabilitate the flawed archaic systems still present at our lawcourts. While some lawyers may view new ideas for reform of the law courts with a degree of cynicism, the government cannot shirk from its responsibility to strengthen the country's judicial system.

Both Dr Herrera and I, as practising lawyers, have yearned for well functioning courts of law. The cures to the many ills, we both know, cannot wait for an imaginary magical potion that would change the course of events, where lawsuits would be heard justly, speedily and efficiently; where the public felt that justice was delivered in court; where the judiciary and court officials were proud to work for justice.

No! There is no such potion to cure the system from its ills. A long period of treatment is prescribed. Different ills are being treated systematically.

Previous ministers of justice have increased the complement of judges and magistrates. We now have 10 judges to hear cases in the First Hall. Past ministers introduced amendments to some procedures and introduced new concepts. Rehabilitation was set in motion. It is now being taken through yet another cycle of treatment with a considerable dose of tender loving care.

Unlike what Dr Herrera seems to think, the system is still unwell. A quick look at the statistical information posted in June 2003 on the Ministry of Justice website indicates where some of the ailments lie.

Point 1: 41 per cent of the workload in the First Hall of the Civil Courts has been pending for five years and over. One thousand one hundred and ninety (1,190) of these cases have remained undecided for 10 years and over.

Point 2: The statistics for last year show that the 9,228 odd cases in that same hall have been reduced by 887. Using simple arithmetic, to reduce and clear this backlog a further 10 years are needed. This is, of course, not acceptable to those citizens seeking redress.

Delays in taking remedial action merely because they upset familiar routines of inefficiency and justice is not on. My friend seems to be advocating the contrary. We should not stall because the situation is fine and some vociferous members of the legal profession are not prepared to change. The crust of legal conservatism can be supported and strengthened as long as that system serves the citizens' need for due process in a reasonable time. If the system fails to meet the citizens' aspirations then it should be questioned and altered. It is no longer a taboo to question the wrongdoings and inefficiencies of the judicial system. It seems that my colleague would like the status quo to persist.

It is high time that we take stock of the situation and of the fact that the past remedies have not achieved the required results. It may well be acceptable for some lawyers to have their clients' cases dragged on for years on end but it is not so for society in general. It is unacceptable to small and medium enterprises and foreign investment as these are matters which are taken into consideration by people contemplating Malta as a location to establish a business. This apart the fact that our commercial community has strong views on the length of time the courts take to decide cases.

The choice is either to stand as we are in ill-health, as Dr Herrera seems to suggest, or move on and undertake new remedies that in the long term will justify their introduction. The government has established the long-awaited Family Court. The minister and I consulted extensively. We discussed the implications of the Family Court with all concerned. No debate was cut short. Every contribution was evaluated carefully and many suggestions adopted. The treatment was not administered in darkness.

We have introduced two new measures.

One uses the already established structures of the Malta Arbitration Centre. The centre will receive cases relating to traffic accidents where no personal injury is involved and the damage is of under Lm5,000. This will alleviate the pressure on our courts while offering a swift and cost-effective procedure to the citizen.

The courts are not the only venue within our system for resolving litigation. Reinforcing the utility of the Malta Arbitration Centre does not in any way detract from the solemnity or power of our courts as Dr Herrera suggests. Courts earn the respect and trust of the citizens when justice is seen to be done speedily and fairly. This measure gives the necessary space to the judiciary to deliver justice where it is truly needed.

The other introduces an expedient legal remedy to debts below Lm5,000 that are certain, liquid and due. Here the filing of a judicial act which is not disputed by the debtor will suffice as an executive title for the creditor. Once more this will relieve pressure on the judiciary while giving the citizen and the small and medium enterprises an effective remedy.

Understandably these approaches might not gain universal approval. The government welcomes, as it has done on other occasions, open discussion on the treatment being prescribed. It will not, however, be capriciously held back from proceeding with the implementation of well cut out measures.

Other problems will manifest themselves in the future. The next cycle of change will come with full discussion, careful consideration and assessment, be this with or without the approval of the opposition. In the long term, however, the judicial system will be a healthier organism.

As a concluding note, I am heartened to read in Dr Herrera's contribution that a sense of humour prevails in the corridors of our law courts - the medicine cannot taste that bad after all!

Dr Mifsud Bonnici is parliamentary secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Justice.