What logic makes good judges?

It was like a breath of fresh air when a lawyer - an advocate? - took up the defence of the Commission for the Administration of Justice on the Camilleri appointment (Talking Point, November 13).

When disappointed people asked the Commission for an explanation for their refusal to clear Dr Andrè Camilleri's appointment as judge, the Commission replied that it was not permitted by the constitution to comment on its own workings.

This is very disappointing to us, non-lawyers. We care a lot who is allowed to be judge. However, Dr Kevin Dingli came to the rescue by quoting the letter of the law to show us why he feels the commission was right.

However, a careful look at the articles of Maltese law that Dr Dingli quotes raises the question of whether the law is talking about what it is to be an advocate (or to exercise the profession of an advocate), or whether it is talking about what it is to be an advocate in the courts of Malta (or to exercise the profession of advocate in the courts of Malta). This is a very important point.

Suppose the law states that you have to have a lorry driver's driving licence to be recognised as a lorry driver (that is, to be allowed to drive a lorry). That is not to say that you have to have a lorry driver's licence to be a driver, simply because you can be a car driver without a lorry driver's licence. You still need to have a licence - but a car's licence is enough. So, to say that somebody who does not have a lorry driver's licence cannot be allowed to be a driver is wrong.

Now, Dr Dingli tells us that the Maltese constitution does not say it requires 12 years of practice as advocate in the courts of Malta, but 12 years practising as advocate, to be eligible to be a judge. Good enough to be a driver, then, using our comparison - no need to be a lorry driver.

But then he goes on to quote other parts of the law that, he seems to be saying, show us that it is a lorry driver the law means after all - I mean that a lawyer who does not practise in the Maltese courts is quite simply, in the eyes of the law, not practising as an advocate.

Is he saying that these articles show that nobody is practising as an advocate unless he or she is practisng in the Maltese law courts?

This would mean that lawyers who do intricate and skilled legal work with companies, or give advice to people without appearing in court, are therefore, according to his interpretation, simply not practising the profession of advocate at all. "You drive a car, mate, and you're not a driver - I drive a lorry, so I'm a driver. I can get the driver's licence, you can't", the parallel argument would go.

"Eh, wait a minute, mate," the likely answer could then be. "Maybe it's two different things. One thing is what gets you a licence; another is what counts as experience as a driver."

Maybe there is something like that too, in fact, when speaking of Maltese law.

Question 1: Do you need to have done work in court to get the warrant of advocate? Dr Dingli quotes article 81, Civil Code, which says you must have attended at the superior court and at a court lawyer's office for at least a year to get the warrant.

Question 2: What does the warrant make you? That article, and others quoted, say that it allows you to be an advocate at the Maltese court. On the strength of these articles alone, you can be an advocate even without the warrant, so long as you practise outside court. You, as an advocate, would need the warrant simply to practise in the Maltese court.

In fact, however, article 80 is more direct, and says something more. Having got the warrant, it says, if you do not take the oath of allegiance in open court, you can't practise as an advocate (does not say you cannot practise as an advocate in the Maltese court).

Some could say that this is still all about what is needed to practise as an advocate in court, because that is what the whole section is about.

Others might argue that this is the only section that may be interpreted as making the warrant essential for one to be simply an advocate, whether acting in court or outside it.

Without both warrant and oath, they would interpret this article to say, you're not an advocate yet. I am not sure all would see this as clear, but the most one could say is that a warrant and the oath are needed before you can call yourself an advocate. And that requires a year of apprenticeship with the court. So court experience is essential.

But this is only like saying that to be a recognised driver you need to have sat next to a lorry driver for a year! You need never have driven a lorry! And if, after this year's sitting and watching, you spend 12 years driving cars, you still have a 12 years' experience as a driver! (Let alone that driving a car could in places need greater skills and judgment than driving a lorry).

Similarly, any LLD who has watched the courts happen for a year, got the warrant and taken the oath, and then acts as a lawyer without ever appearing again in court, surely, to my logic, has the experie. The law nowhere says that an advocate is exercising the profession only when acting in court.

The conclusion seems to be that, if the commission objected, it must not have been because the law about experience was broken, but about the quality and relevance of the experience. It took the strong step to publish its objection, which automatically and obviously would make any candidate resign. Bold step indeed! This has many momentous aspects I am not qualified to go into.

Still, tiny Malta has only one lorry garage. I would wish a non-lorry driver to come in from outside, once in a while, and bring in the experience and the ways of doing things of other climes! Perhaps it is not too late.