Justice Minister Jonathan Attard has refused to comment on the appropriateness of a Malta Film Commission tour to film sets, complete with lunch, given to a group of judges and magistrates.

Asked directly for his opinion on the matter, he simply said that the highest ethical standards were expected from members of the judiciary.

Insisting that he was not referring to this tour but that he was speaking generically, Attard said such high ethical standards were also expected from politicians and the media.

“Are you saying that members of the judiciary cannot go anywhere because someone they meet could one day ends up before them in a court case?” he asked in reply.

Times of Malta revealed last week how a group of judges and magistrates were among those treated to a tour of the Gladiator 2 set by the Malta Film Commission, complete with a lunch and quiz testing their knowledge of the history of shooting films in the country.

The activity, for which all members of the judiciary were invited, raised questions over whether their participation was appropriate.

It took place on March 24 and was organised by the Judicial Studies Committee, a body set up in 2003 for “the initial and continuous judicial training” of magistrates and judges.

Attard would not be drawn into commenting on the case.

“I was criticised because I had called on a magistrate to conclude an inquiry. I was accused of putting undue pressure on the judiciary and now I’m being asked for my opinion on a tour organised by the Judicial Studies Committee. There should be consistency.

"I will not comment about this case specifically but all I can say, generically speaking, is that high ethical standards are expected from the judiciary as they are expected from politicians and also the media,” he said.

The minister stuck to his guns, even when it was pointed out that the film commissioner had gone to court in an attempt to stop a story from being published.

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation recently said that the commission had filed a civil case to annul a decision ordering it to reveal how much it paid British celebrity David Walliams to appear at the Malta Film Awards.

The foundation had won a Freedom of Information ruling to obtain that information.

The judiciary code of ethics allows members to accept benefits from the executive if they are addressed to them collectively but bans them from accepting any benefit “which might possibly influence them in the proper fulfilment of their judicial duties or which might give an impression of improper conduct”.

Legal sources said that the activity for magistrates and judges appeared to be a recreational one and raised questions of appropriateness, especially in the context of long-running controversies surrounding the lack of transparency in the Film Commission’s lavish spending.

Sources said that on the day of the tour, the Malta Film Commission took the group on several film sets, which included a visit to the Gladiator sequel set,  still under construction at the time.

During the tour, the members of the judiciary that attended were given facts and figures on the history of film shooting in Malta.

They were then treated to a lunch and a 30-minute multiple-choice quiz game.

“It was just a fun game and they seemed to enjoy it a lot,” said one source.

The Code of Ethics for Members of the Judiciary says that “as a rule, a judge may engage in historical, educational, cultural, sporting or like social and recreational activities, if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties”.

It also allows them to “accept any advantage or benefit from the executive” if it is addressed to the judiciary collectively.

The code of ethics also says, however, that members of the judiciary shall not participate in activities organised by “associations or bodies with political leanings, or which in their nature or in the purpose of their existence can be in conflict with their independence or impartiality”.

It also prohibits them from acting “in such manner as might imply political partiality”, and “shall not accept any gift, favour or benefit which might possibly influence them in the proper fulfilment of their judicial duties or which might give an impression of improper conduct”.