Mischievous politicians of the old school used to say, only half-jokingly, that a prime minister would assign the justice portfolio to an individual he would not like to see re-elected – that’s how hard a nut the sector is to crack.
This observation can hardly apply to the new justice minister though. Jonathan Attard was the Labour Party’s choice for co-option to parliament a year ago and had a very strong showing at general election.
The task of the former TV journalist, now a lawyer, is to ensure the right environment for the courts to provide “effective and timely justice”, to use the wording found in the Labour Party’s electoral manifesto. The document proposes reforming judicial processes to increase efficiency, create a structure for magistrates to be solely focused on criminal inquiries and introduce time limits on family court cases, among others.
What the party aims for, as expounded in the manifesto, is, no doubt, what all of us would like to see happening without any more waste of time: a robust justice system that we can trust blindly. “Justice must be done, be seen to be done and be timely,” the document enunciates.
Whether Attard succeeds or not depends on a number of factors, not least his determination but also the cooperation and commitment he gets from all stakeholders.
As a journalist he must have had a very good feel of the situation on the ground. As a lawyer he would have obtained an even better insight into the ins and outs of the justice system in its widest form.
All sorts of justice and court reforms have been mentioned over the years but most of Attard’s predecessors were strong on talk but weak on ‘walk’.
If there is one thing that has emerged very clearly over the years it is that reforms within the courts can neither be rushed nor imposed.
Still, the justice ‘supply chain’ demands urgent attention because it is evidently causing the public to lose trust in the institution, mainly because of the inordinate delays.
The criminal justice system is another main contributing factor to public discontent, particularly because of the number of acquittals on the grounds of technical mistakes made either by the prosecution – usually the police – or by the first instance courts.
Formal introductions over, the new justice minister must set the ball rolling for a comprehensive action plan to be drawn up soonest and list what is expected of the different stakeholders to start moving towards workable solutions. Their commitment must be clearly defined and, possibly, accompanied by time frames.
A few months ago, Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, president of the Association of Judges and Magistrates of Malta, wrote in Times of Malta that the situation in court is “certainly critical”. He identified the root causes of the criticism directed at the judicial system and its major problems as being “the acute lack of adequate space, trained and dedicated personnel and resources in the law courts”.
Calling for “serious and bold measures” to be taken immediately, the judge, no doubt echoing the opinion of his learned colleagues, was unequivocal in what he thought the consequences would be if things remained unchanged.
“If no urgent and immediate action is taken,” he warned, “the situation is bound to further deteriorate, this leading to the eventual collapse of the essential institution responsible for maintaining the rule of law, namely the law courts.”
There is no evidence that significant improvements have been made since the judge wrote these words. The new justice minister has just taken on a case in court that he can’t afford to lose.