The manner in which former minister Edward Zammit Lewis spoke and wrote about it gave the impression a reform in the criminal justice system was practically done. More than a year ago, he had told Times of Malta the criminal procedure in its entirety was under an in-depth review to ensure the system would become “efficient and effective”.
That is hardly the case, as was made clear by the head of a visiting delegation from the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee: “I recognise some steps, yes, we see there is a reform process but it lacks pace, speed and, sometimes, some of the reforms are half-hearted and not complete. There needs to be more political ownership. Things have to move faster.”
When, under pressure, he had pushed forward a number of constitutional reforms, the former justice minister was rebuked by the Venice Commission. The Council of Europe’s constitutional experts had pointed out that what he was proposing would “have a profound and long-term impact” and there should, therefore, be “wide consultations within Maltese society”.
They had urged the government to conduct “wide consultations and a structured dialogue with civil society, parliamentary parties, academia, the media and other institutions, in order to open a free and unhampered debate on the current and future reforms, including for constitutional revision, to make them holistic”.
Yet, like the reforms themselves, such “wide consultations” remain only on paper, if at all.
In its latest evaluation report on Malta, GRECO, the Group of States Against Corruption, felt it had again to appeal “for greater transparency in the legislative process, including meaningful public consultations”.
Pressure continues to mount to address the “excruciatingly slow justice system”, as the visiting European Parliament delegation put it. The government reacts by promising more of the same.
It seems an “overhaul” of the criminal justice system is again on the cards. The measures being proposed include imposing a one-year limit on pre-trial proceedings, setting new time-frames for criminal cases, dropping the so-called referrals in compilation procedures and introducing a provision so the prosecution would inform the court at the outset about the entire body of evidence.
Rather than adopting a holistic approach, the Criminal Code is being amended piecemeal and as a knee-jerk response. This is very evident in what is being proposed in connection with committal proceedings, what is usually referred to as compilation of evidence.
Just a few months ago, the idea had been to eliminate it completely, as in the UK, though that occurred only after a number of steps were taken. Now a maximum time limit will be proposed.
Law experts and jurists are likely to deem such a move as a very significant change in the Criminal Code and would, therefore, have expected some wider form of consultation. That would have also attracted the input of academics – who possess the totality of knowledge, especially the historical background – and not just lawyers and the judiciary.
There is also fear the proposed amendments could be rushed through parliament, little realising that an overhaul of a substantial number of Criminal Code provisions and a new modus operandi by the prosecution, the defence counsel and the courts themselves will very likely be necessary as a result.
True, the sense of urgency cannot be overlooked. However, for the reforms not to be only on paper, there must also be “a change in mentality and culture”, as a former magistrate who formed part of the European Parliament mission wisely advised.