Robert Abela’s call at last week’s Labour Party centenary conference for the judiciary to do its work without delays is a sentiment that resonates in every stratum of society.
Many people have bitter experiences of entanglements in court cases due to unnecessary delays. Yet, the causes are varied. Although there are members of the judiciary who have bad court and case management, and some who are just plain indifferent to the task vested in them, the diligent, hardworking members of the judiciary also struggle to stay on top of their caseload.
That shows it will take more than earnestness and hard work by the judiciary to make the courts more efficient. The point has repeatedly been made that there is a shortage in the judiciary in proportion to workload.
Moreover, the indication is that lowering the number of days it takes to resolve cases has largely stalled.
The low clearance rate of old cases suggests it might not be possible to make further headway. Years-long delays also remain a reality in the court of appeal.
The obvious area where shortage in numbers can be tackled is in magisterial inquiries. It is a truism in legal circles that magistrates do not have the time and expertise to handle demanding or complex magisterial investigations on top of their cases in court. The solution may be to appoint a complement of magistrates tasked only with magisterial inquiries and run-of-the-mill duty magistrate tasks on a rota basis.
This would lead to short-term improvements because magistrates are the workhorses of the justice system. Freeing them to dedicate themselves to court cases would lead to more efficient delivery throughout the whole system. It would take the wind out of many potential appeals that have to be handled by judges, thus clearing clogging higher up the system.
There are other off-the-shelf measures that can be implemented in particular courts. For example, magistrates in the criminal court often lament the low quality of prosecutions mounted by some police inspectors, creating cascading inefficiency.
Improvements can be made by having lawyers, or trained prosecuting officers, handle prosecutions instead of police inspectors. This measure is reportedly being devised.
Other courts can also benefit from specific measures to clear backlog, and this includes the Family Court, where cases tend to get stuck and judges are under strain by sheer caseload.
Other proposals were made by the Bonello Commission of 2013, and the Venice Commission report. They include introducing a mechanism to change laws deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, doing away with the current system in which a judgment is applicable only to the specific case. This spawns repetitive lawsuits that are a waste of resources.
Unfortunately, the government last year wrong-footed itself by rushing last April’s judicial appointments instead of moving steadily on reform.
This unnecessary battle, for which the government is to blame, has now escalated to the European Court of Justice and become a source of uncertainty when it comes to appointing judiciary, including appointments to fill four upcoming vacancies this year.
It is welcoming to hear the government say that it will now implement Venice Commission recommendations, including a new system of judicial appointments. It is now time to initiate wide-ranging reforms, and only then expect the judiciary to up their game.