Words are powerful. They both express us and reflect us. They reveal and define us.

In a court of law, the idea that words count for everything is taken up a whole notch. For it is through words that cases are won or lost – that is to say, who owns what, who gets custody and who gets put behind bars.

When people choose to go to court, they are forsaking violence (swords, guns and fists) and are placing their faith instead in words. They see them as the way to resolve their intractable and all-too-human disputes.

So they don’t take the law into their own hands but trust instead the wisdom of judges and magistrates. And they do that in the hope that their cause will be judged impartially, fairly and without prejudice. If words are powerful in everyday life, they are weightier still at law.

Which is why judicial flippancy is frowned upon and why magistrates and judges are encouraged not to speak out in open court.

The wisest adjudicators are the ones who speak less and listen more, keeping at all times their ‘cards' close to their chest.

Judges and magistrates are, in this sense, as much ‘on trial’ as the accused in the dock. True, they are judging us  but we, the public, are also judging them. And for that reason (and numerous others), judges and magistrates should choose, and then weigh, their words most carefully. Ultimately, it is their ‘Honour’ which is at stake and is hanging in the balance. Any word spoken out of turn could be grounds for recusal.

In a world where we have become so sensitised to words and phrases with racial and gender connotations, we strive all the more to use neutral language. It is staggering, therefore, that words uttered from the bench have on occasion denigrated foreigners and given them the short end of the stick.

In one particular case, one member of the judiciary – who shall remain unnamed to respect the principle of independence of the judiciary – insisted that “it is not acceptable for disputes between foreigners to spill over to Malta”.

This sounded very much like “go back to your country”. And that sentiment, which smacks of xenophobia, is most unbecoming of someone in that position.

In a recent sitting, no time was lost by the bench in telling everyone in the courtroom about the “lies” perpetrated by foreigners.

Without going into the merits of the case, the point so clearly signalled was that the Maltese and Gozitans have exclusive rights to roam the countryside and flex their muscles. However, if a foreigner is caught doing the same thing, he is branded a liar and immediately reminded that he is an unwanted guest.

In another case involving a foreigner, the same member of the judiciary went out of the way to say that the court had no qualms in handing down a jail term in the event of a guilty plea.

This was the same member of the bench who had found no objection to the immediate release on bail of a Maltese man charged with involuntary homicide.

On that occasion, it was not thought fit to tell the courtroom about the insouciance and irresponsibility of Maltese young men who think nothing of driving under the influence.

Nor did this member of the judiciary point out how such selfish and reckless behaviour causes deep tragedy in the lives of innocent bystanders.

The bench cannot be used for speeches that pass judgement on foreigners simply because they are foreigners.