Comedy in court

The Labour Party are hell bent in extracting what they perceive to be political advantage from the Meinrad Calleja jury verdict.

They seem to think that they can mislead people by making crass innuendoes about Joseph Fenech and his relationship with Eddie Fenech Adami.

Mr Fenech would not have been required to defend the Prime Minister and his family had MLP supporters not been exhorted to go on the rampage. They want us to forget the vile attack on his family while the Birkirkara police next door played the three brass monkeys.

Anybody who knows anything about Dr Fenech Adami, his integrity and exemplary family life will be simply sickened by this type of politicking.

Juries in our island have become so perverse that the leader of the opposition can even crow about having made some 200 speeches about the case, while presumably, it was sub-judice, with impunity.

The courts keep mum, the police turn a blind eye and the field is left wide open for the most blatant and obscene interference with the so-called due process of justice. The way justice is operating in our island, and in our time, has reached such a nadir that something surely has to be done. Perhaps the recent cases in which prominent members of the judiciary are involved preclude any re-organisation before these cases come to a conclusion.

It is infinitely easier to manipulate a jury than holding a presiding judge responsible for a politically charged verdict.

The whole idea of a jury is no more than a cop out. I say that it does not make sense to replace a learned judge, trained to examine evidence, note inconsistencies and be unimpressed by the theatricals of a defending lawyer, by nine people who may or may not be complete ignoramuses but who are certainly affected by the persistent political interference, so evident in this case, to do the job only a judge is trained to perform.

Juries have become synonymous with a throw of the dice, with the same randomness and unpredictability. They have absolutely nothing to do with coherent justice, skilfully and fairly executed.

How can anyone have confidence in such a system? A few years ago a retired British judge was invited to give an after-dinner speech at the Spread Eagle Hotel in Thame Buckinghamshire to which I was invited.

I remember a case he narrated where a lady juror was clearly napping during a crucial stage of the evidence. When challenged, she replied she could tell that the defendant was guilty by the way he moved his eyebrows. He cited another murder case when a jury used an Ouija board to try to contact the deceased.