The ideal attorney general
Attorney General Victoria ButtigiegI refer to the editorial ‘The AG is not fit for purpose’ (June 7), which called for Victoria Buttigieg’s resignation. Whether this suggestion is heeded is yet to be seen.
Yet, irrespective of the outcome of a string of controversies that have lately put the AG’s office in the limelight, one should ponder on what essential qualities should a future AG, or, to put it in its proper perspective, a public prosecutor have in order that we may truly state that this constitutional institution is working properly.
If we ever come to that situation, what qualities should we look for in the next attorney general? How do you prioritise independence, leadership and experience? What areas of enforcement should the next AG focus on?
In this respect, I wish to highlight a few recommendations contained in the recommendation on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system (Rec (2000)19) adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on October 6, 2000.
Yes, more than two decades ago, it was agreed in principle that the public prosecutor is an authority who, on behalf of society and in the public interest, ensures the application of the law where the breach of the law carries a criminal sanction, taking into account both the rights of the individual and the necessary effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the careers of public prosecutors, their promotions and their mobility are to be governed by known and objective criteria, such as competence and experience.
Over and above all this, training is both a duty and a right for all public prosecutors, before their appointment as well as on a permanent basis. States should, therefore, take effective measures to ensure that public prosecutors have appropriate education and training, both before and after their appointment.
In particular, public prosecutors should be made aware of the principles and ethical duties of their office. Furthermore, states should take effective measures to provide for additional training on specific issues or in specific sectors, in the light of present-day conditions, taking into account, in particular, the types and the development of criminality, as well as international cooperation on criminal matters.
In order to respond better to developing forms of criminality, particularly organised crime, specialisation should be seen as a priority, in terms of the organisation of public prosecutors as well as in terms of training and in terms of careers. Recourse to teams of specialists, including multidisciplinary teams, designed to assist public prosecutors in carrying out their functions should also be developed.
With respect to the organisation and the internal operation of the public prosecution, in particular the assignment and reassignment of cases, this should meet requirements of impartiality and independence and maximise the proper operation of the criminal justice system, in particular the level of legal qualification and specialisation devoted to each matter.
Last, but not least, states should take appropriate measures to ensure that public prosecutors are able to perform their professional duties and responsibilities without unjustified interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability.
However, the public prosecution should account periodically and publicly for its activities as a whole and, in particular, the way in which its priorities were carried out.
So there you have it.
Mark Said LLD – Msida