The role of the judiciary is not simply to deliver judgments and condemn but also to apply all tools at their disposition to help those brought before them, a new judge said on Friday.

In her inaugural speech, Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras said the life of the judiciary is not an easy one at all. 

It is a life of “service, study and constant research, almost totally devoted to work, which carries great responsibilities”. 

No amount of preparation can fully prepare magistrates, particularly those serving as duty magistrates on any particular day, to face the various situations that come their way. 

Training for new magistrates ought to be considered, said the judge, suggesting that retired members of the judiciary could step in to share their legal knowledge and vast experience. 

The distinction between judges and magistrates no longer makes sense today. 

Magistrates’ workload is equally voluminous and their competence is no longer limited to offences liable to a few months of imprisonment but now extends to crimes carrying a maximum jail term of 12 years. 

Moreover, their caseload has also grown more complex, particularly on account of crimes related to modern technology. 

Thus “any distinction by way of protocol, treatment and work conditions nowadays is out of place.” 

Magistrates are currently “flooded” with work, and like judges, they deserve the assistance of a court attorney.

This long-sought assistance is unfortunately still lacking. 

It is useless talking about inefficiency and delays in court without making “a serious effort” to afford each magistrate and judge all resources necessary to work with greater efficiency and expediency. 

The recent proposal of appointing new magistrates to focus solely on inquiries is a step in the right direction since it will help relieve sitting magistrates of their workload, enabling them to concentrate exclusively on pending cases and judgments, Galea Sciberras said. 

Having magistrates working on inquiries should also speed up the process of wrapping up such inquiries. 

However, it is useless appointing new magistrates unless they are equipped with all necessary resources, including workspace and well-trained and competent staff. 

It was frustrating to note a number of recently appointed magistrates who had to wait for months before they could start functioning. 

Undertrained, understaffed

Not having a full complement of staff is frustrating, but having undertrained staff is even more frustrating. 

Delays in judicial proceedings were often blamed upon the courts.

But added to the fact that the number of judges and magistrates was too small to handle the volume of incoming cases, the parties to the proceedings sometimes also contributed to the delay. 

Particularly in compilations of evidence before the Magistrates’ Courts, the constant referrals back and forth from the Attorney General’s Office uselessly dragged out proceedings.

This was especially so when the request was repeatedly for the prosecution to declare whether it had further evidence to produce, even though the prosecution would have rested its case “months if not years before”.

Sometimes time is wasted when the prosecution fails to summon witnesses or produces only one witness, even when the accused happens to be in preventive custody.

On other occasions, it is the defence that fails to produce evidence because the accused’s lawyer turns up for the hearing not well-prepared. 

The right of disclosure also needs to be better understood and respected by the prosecution. 

The accused has a right to know what evidence the prosecution has against him from the very start to enable the accused’s lawyers to better plan their defence and avoid useless waste of time. 

Plea bargaining should also be put to better use to cut down on the number of cases which end up in a trial before the Criminal Court, ensuring more expedient handling of cases and making better use of human resources and taxpayers’ money. 

Suggestion about Drugs Court

Having long presided over drug cases, Madam Justice Galea Sciberras made a suggestion concerning the procedure whereby a court may convert itself into a Drugs Court in terms of article 8 of the Drug Dependence (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act. 

That law enables a court to send the accused before the drug offenders rehabilitation board. But until that board reaches a decision, the court cannot proceed to judgment.

That process might take 18 months or more, observed the judge, thus suggesting that the law should be amended and this article removed altogether.

The law should allow the court discretion in not handing down an effective jail term without the need to convert itself into a Drugs Court and send the accused to be assessed by the board. 

Courts should always use the tools at their disposition to assist those needing help. 

The judge recounted an episode concerning a particular drug offender.

The first time the accused was charged before her, she was so thin that the then-magistrate did not immediately realise that the woman was pregnant.

But with effort on her part and with all the help afforded to her by the court, the woman pulled through and changed her life, steering away from drugs. 

She still followed up on the woman’s progress through her probation officer, noted the judge with a sense of satisfaction.