The European Commission finds that the time it takes to conclude court cases in this country is worrying.

“Serious challenges remain as regards the efficiency of the justice system, in particular the length of court proceedings, the impact of the low number of judges and the digitalisation of justice,” it said in an annual report that serves as a health check on the rule of law in member states.

The right to “a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Still, unnecessary lengthy proceedings in court persist, notwithstanding the multitude of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights about this right being infringed.

In Malta, court cases take between double and eight times as long to be concluded as the average within the European Union. The court’s workload has grown significantly and the situation is not likely to get any better. Yet, the number of judges and magistrates remains inadequate. So many chief justices have said it and the topic is often also raised by judges and magistrates in their inaugural sitting or on their retirement.

At the beginning of the Forensic Year, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti described the perennial problem of court delays as the judicial system’s “biggest challenge”, which could only be adequately addressed by appointing more members of the judiciary. The Association of Judges and Magistrates too insists the judiciary must grow in number to cope with the workload.

It has long been the fact that the number of judges and magistrates per capita in Malta is among the lowest in the EU. That must be one of the primary causes of the delay and pile-up of cases.

Attempts have been made along the years to deal with the matter. These included a Master system, which did not produce the desired results. It has also been argued that strict adherence to procedure would go a long way to address the problem. However, sticking to procedure can only really work if a judge or magistrate has a clean sheet when starting rather than inheriting a long list of pending cases.

No significant improvement has ever really been made in tackling the problem of court delays, probably because the problem was never approached in a holistic manner but in piecemeal fashion.

The same approach appears to persist today.

A number of judges and magistrates have recently been appointed but the complement is still far from what stakeholders would like it to be. Even then, there are simply not enough court rooms to go round.

Neither are there enough qualified deputy registrars and court staff available; it seems not too many civil servants are willing to be transferred to the law courts.

If, as an official statement said a few days ago, the efficiency of the justice system is to be improved and the waiting time decreased, then a comprehensive approach must be adopted.

If the authorities mean what they say about strengthening the justice system, a whole new ‘structure’ must be devised and built soonest.

That would include a well-functioning building that is fit for purpose, an adequate complement of judges and magistrates also equipped with the necessary specialisations, well-trained and motivated staff and a body of laws and regulations ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor hurried.

What counts in justice is not that it is expedient but expeditious.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.