New judges and magistrates will be examined and interviewed by a panel of experts before being appointed, if a judicial reform commission has its way.

The report is meant to provoke discussion

Appointments, it is being suggested, would be made after a public call for applications.

The proposals are two of 135 made by the commission headed by former European Human Rights Court judge Giovanni Bonello.

In a 112-page report, the commission recommended creating a body to discipline members of the judiciary for misdemeanours, bad behaviour and illegal practices.

The report was meant “to provoke” discussion, Dr Bonello said when he presented a copy to Justice Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici. Dr Bonnici set up the commission soon after the election, giving it a mandate to propose reforms to the justice system.

Other members of the commission are Judge Philip Sciberras; lawyer Kevin Aquilina, dean of the law faculty at the University, and lawyer Ramona Frendo.

A second report with specific recommendations for reform in the various court branches is expected by July. A public consultation exercise will be held and a final list of proposals will be drawn up by October.

“The Government wants to act as fast as possible on the recommendations to reform the justice sector for the benefit of the public,” Dr Bonnici said.

The report proposes wide-ranging changes to how members of the judiciary are appointed and disciplined. It says the present system of appointments, in place since 1964, lacks transparency and the only available disciplinary measure is impeachment, the most extreme form.

“Crucial” to the changes is an improvement in the salaries and pensions given to the judiciary, with the commission suggesting this be brought in line with European standards.

“Without adequate financial compensation it will be difficult to attract lawyers to join the Bench and this will consequently limit the pool of people.”

The commission also proposed creating an autonomous public prosecution unit distinct from the public service and the Attorney General.

The report lists a number of technical and administrative changes to reduce bureaucracy and cut court delays.

Proposals include a capping on the number of times a criminal case can be referred back to the Attorney General, which the commission said lengthened the process uselessly.

The commission also proposed a six-month limit on the delivery of judgments.

The report will be available online on the commission’s website at krhg@gov.mt.

Appointments

Appointments to the Bench and promotions involving members of the judiciary would be recommended to the Government by a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

• The Commission for the Administration of Justice should in no way be involved in appointing members of the judiciary.

• Set up under the Constitution, the JAC will have six members appointed by the President after wide consultation.

• Four members should have links to the legal profession, such as former judges and law academics, while the other two should be qualified people representing the public.

• Sitting MPs cannot be JAC members.

• Vacancies in the judiciary will be filled after a public call for applications.

• Candidates will have to take a written and oral exam.

• An obligatory system of mentoring for new judges and magistrates will be introduced in the first six to nine months after their appointment.

• The director of public prosecution, a new entity, and the lawyers under his wing should be appointed by the JAC.

Judging the judges

A Commission for the Discipline of the Judiciary (CDJ) would be empowered to discipline magistrates and judges according to the severity of the infringement, with impeachment being a measure of last resort.

• The Commission for the Administration of Justice will not be involved in disciplinary proceedings of the judiciary.

• Set up under the Constitution, the CDJ will have six members appointed by the President after wide consultation with similar representation as the JAC.

• Disciplinary measures include: a formal warning; a reprimand; an admonition; suspension; transfer to a lower court; and a demotion such as Chief Justice to judge and judge to magistrate.

• Warnings, reprimands and admonitions should not be public, but the other three disciplinary measures would be.

• All acts of discipline will be listed in a register accessible to the JAC.

• The CDJ – and not Parliament – should have the remit to impeach any member of the judiciary.

Censurable offences

The reform commission published a non-exhaustive list of offences committed by the judiciary that may not warrant impeachment but other forms of discipline.

These include:

• Incorrect behaviour.

• Out-of-place comments in the courtroom.

• Breach of the judicial code of ethics.

• Committing traffic contraventions.

• Showing a gross lack of knowledge of the law and procedural methods.

• Getting involved in political partisan activities.

• Having an addiction to alcohol, drugs or gambling.

• Using prostitutes or being blatantly promiscuous.

• Having a conflict of interest.

• Taking an extremely long time to deliver judgment.

• Habitually socialising with lawyers and individuals who appear in cases before them.

• Regularly starting the sittings late.