Daniels, come to judgment

Who can fail to agree with President Guido de Marco that "a sentence should not take more than two or three years to be handed down"? Disagreement can only be on the 50 per cent variation (from two to three). Say two years and work within it, before there is further denial of justice. "The delay in the administration of justice is a negation of justice," the President pointed out when he presented the 2002/2003 report of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

No need to tell those who have trudged to the law courts for years, perhaps still without any horizon in sight. The ongoing necessity is to remind the transiting justice ministers and, not to put too fine a point upon it, the judicial class itself.

The commission called for a temporary increase in appointments to it, and also for the appointment of competent persons to carry out spadework for the judges and organise their work efficiently. Valid points. But have not justice ministers emphasised in recent years that the judiciary has been expanded, and that assistants have been allocated to help out? Not enough in either case, perhaps.

Yet 'enough' also has to be related to the time and effort that judges and magistrates as a whole put into their work. Our judges and magistrates have mostly earned the right to be held in high regard, both in terms of ability as well as of integrity. They remain human and cannot be immune to error, of judgment as well as behaviour. Lapses, however, have been infrequent. Fair due and suitable respect should never fail.

That is not to be equated to almightiness, which through the years some arrogate to themselves - an occupational hazard of all those who hold authority or powerful positions. The judiciary, then, would do worse than to be a Daniel unto itself and review its manner of going about its business. Is there room for improvement, even if it remains necessary to put in place a better infrastructure and working environment?

It was observed that judges have to retire at 65 but, paradoxically, magistrates bow out at 60. The disparity clearly lacks any evident rational basis. It should be remedied forthwith. There is no evidence that magistrates have such an energy-sapping role that they must be put out to grass five years earlier than judges, the odd implication being that the latter experience lesser demands.

It was also noted that elsewhere judges retire at 75, apparently implying that could be made the case with our judiciary. In comparative terms, why not? We have just had a PM retiring at 70, only to slip into the presidency for a five-year term. The incumbent septuagenarian president will, possibly, be transferring to the European Parliament. We had a former (Labour) prime minister, a rumbustious octogenarian, who rattled his own government out of office into a 10-year wilderness.

So, why cannot judges remain active into their seventies? Because it would be ludicrous, that's why. With their retiring age set four years longer than the norm, a number of them through time have not set any court on fire well before approaching it. Leave them on the bench for a further 10 years after they reach 65, and the gentle folk on the benches in the village square might look tempestuous by comparison.

Suggestions to resolve the stubborn backlog of pending cases, despite the hard pinch of sharply higher court fees, should be made of more contemplative stuff than that, including critical introspection.

Rare are Daniels who come to judgment upon themselves. Some bold examples would fire the imagination and make it more urgent for the government of the day to judge itself to see whether it is, in fact, extending the right tools and conditions, and doing so adequately.

Chief Justice Vincent de Gaetano, sharing the occasion of the presentation of the commission's report with President de Marco, highlighted various points that should be mulled over. He stressed a suggestion that minor cases be heard, deliberated upon, and decided by a magistrate "there and then". Legal beagles may demur about that possibility and exclaim, "Hasten not, err not so much!" But, there is merit in the point.

Chief Justice Degaetano bore on another matter. Judges, he said, have a tendency to write sentences that are too long. That should change because "it takes up a lot of precious time". Rather circular and very obvious. Easily remedied too, if our Daniels can find the time to put their mind and writing skills to it. They do not require additional resources for that.

The Chief Justice was right to observe that a judge who retires on a salary of Lm17,000 to a pension of Lm4,000 (actually, Lm4,500) find it hard to adjust. He was right, but on the wrong occasion. That situation affects all those who were not in public service in 1979, or who do not serve as MPs for 15 years, including as ministers for three (and the President for five).

The judiciary, no less than others, are entitled to feel pained. They can make representations outside the context of a report on the administration of justice. Exposition of ways to improve the administration of justice should not be coloured, no matter how unconsciously, by considerations of monetary injustice towards the dispensers of justice. That makes for an out-of-place and unseemly sight.