Thank heavens it was the set of Gladiator, the sequel, that members of the judiciary visited during an activity organised by the judicial studies committee. Had it been the epic film Troy, shot here in 2004, they could have easily been accused of ignoring the wise advice not to trust Greeks bearing gifts.
Still, the visit, held in late March, has put the judiciary and the judicial studies committee in the limelight… for the wrong reasons.
Questions have rightly been raised as to whether such an activity – that included lunch – was appropriate, given it involved the input of the Malta Film Commission, which has been embroiled in a string of controversies. Controversies that may well end up in court, as one already has.
The film commission is asking the civil court to overrule a decision by the information and data protection commissioner to say publicly what it paid British celebrity David Walliams who hosted the Malta Film Awards in January 2022.
The judge hearing the case may have opted to miss the film studios tour, but details are lacking. Neither the film commission, nor the judicial studies committee, nor the tourism ministry would say anything about it.
It is usually when fearing self-incrimination that one resolves to remain silent. So, if the activity was simply “a fun game” the participants seemed to enjoy a lot, as one source told Times of Malta, why not put all cards on the table to put everyone’s mind at rest?
The chief justice, under whose “general direction” the judicial studies committee operates, surely realises, as the internationally acclaimed Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct proclaim, that “the primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary”.
It is possible he has already demanded explanations and even given ‘advice’ to ensure such blunders are not repeated.
However, since “public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society” (Bangalore principles), it would be in order for his office to make a public statement on the matter.
The controversy justifiably raises the issue as to whether the studies committee gives due weight to the imperative of the judiciary being constantly vigilant against any attempts to compromise its autonomy when organising activities.
The film studios tour raises eyebrows also because it appears to be outside its remit. Indeed, the ‘objectives’ of the studies committee, according to its statute, speak of training and education related to “judicial work”.
The studies committee would know that members of the judiciary must, whether on or off the Bench, always abide by their code of ethics, several provisions of which advise caution not to put their independence and impartiality in doubt.
The dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary is continuously stressed by the Bangalore principles, which oblige judges and magistrates to ensure their conduct is “above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer”.
It is incumbent on all members of the judiciary – individually, collectively and through bodies in any way representing them – to vigorously continue to defend and, indeed, strengthen their independence and avoid being compromised.
Not only upholding but also being seen to be upholding and practising impartiality and fairness is crucial for the judiciary in order to be assured of public trust. That is more than enough reason why the chief justice should publicly address the film studios tour.