Last week saw a number of legal beagles getting all hot under the collar because a couple of columnists had made a few comments that the said beagles found to be an attack on their integrity and standing as officers of the court, to say nothing of being, for all I know, against the concepts of motherhood and apple pie.

Let's get things straight: an accused person, whether he is accused of petty theft, multiple homicide, parking his car in the wrong place or whatever other heinous crime you wish to think of, has the inalienable right to a good defence at the hands of the best lawyer he can find. Or afford.

That is one of the cornerstones on which a democracy is built and no Lou Bondí or Daphne Caruana Galizia, for all of their trumpeting the clarion of the common man and perceiving the said common man's perceptions, are going to change this. The accused, however much Mr Bondí or Ms Caruana Galizia and their like find this to be less than a good thing, has to have his day in court and that day, or number of days, must be spent making sure that the accused is guilty and if there is any doubt about this, he walks, and that's all there is to it.

But so fundamental is this right, so solid is the base on which it rests that nothing is going to shake it.

We really don't need smug-sounding lawyers getting even more pompously self-important than some of them are already because someone (such as Mr Bondí or Ms Caruana Galizia) has dared to express an opinion. Just an opinion, mind, an opinion that, just maybe, perhaps, the way some of their brothers defend their clients, when seen within the context of the obligation all lawyers have, as officers of the court, to show paramount loyalty to the court and not to their clients, comes down on the debit rather than the credit side.

Not to put too fine a point on it, a good criminal lawyer defends his client within the law and without resorting to trickery or prestidigitation, a bad one relies on these scams to turn the law inside out.

The bad name that lawyers have, and let's face it, we are lumbered with something of an image problem, comes from the antics of these twisters and their brethren who do the same in the civil and commercial fields, the ones who become as much a con-artist as their clients.

I'm not saying that the lawyers who huffed and puffed last week are the sort of shyster I am describing 'ere above and nor are the disingenuous columnists who sprang to their defence defending crooks. The thing is, however, sad as it may be, that the majority of lawyers, the hardworking, honest ones (yes, there are plenty - ask your own lawyer, the one you run to whenever you need help) are tarred with the same brush as the attention-seeking, photo-op mad, media-courting briefs who think their mission in life is to pull a fast one over the court.

So while my learned colleagues at the criminal bar are entitled to be allowed to practise their trade serene in the knowledge that they are doing an honest day's work for an honest day's wage, might I suggest to them, with all due respect, that they don't get so prissy about defending their integrity? This is something which should not need defending, lest someone points a finger at the wrong specimen of their genus and points at them by mistake.

Or to put it more succinctly, relax, guys, it's only a newspaper column.

And, if I might be allowed to suggest it, could the courts take the lead on this and tell snivelling lawyers in front of them that, hey, do you really think we're going to be impressed because a columnist has written about a case? I, for one, have a higher opinion of our courts' ability to be unimpressed by what we write in the papers than the defence lawyers seem to have.

And just to end it on the subject of lawyers, did you spot the delicious irony caused by Bill Gates' spell-checker kicking in when the list of lawyers defending in The Case That Started All This was drawn up? According to that sublime piece of technology, Dr M. Bestial was one of the defending counsel.

Bah humbug

Just when virtually everyone has come to the conclusion that, however much it's tacky and however much it's unashamed tear-jerking, Istrina is something that gets a result and should, to a greater or lesser extent, be supported, up pops the Omniscient One, Motor-Mouth himself, to say that he will be refusing to take part.

Apparently, the reason for this is that the organisers, Bondí and Azzopardi, are rabid Nationalist Party apologists and supporting Istrina is tantamount to supporting the Nationalist Party, which is in government and which is evicting widows into the snow on Christmas Eve.

Or something like that.

Yes, it is true, Istrina is organised by Messrs Azzopardi and Bondí and yes, it is true, if you see things the way Dr Toni Abela sees them (that is to say, if you don't agree with him in all things at all times, you are a Nationalist Running Dog Apologist Lackey) they are Nationalist Running Dog Apologist Lackeys, but even if this was the case, is that any excuse not to participate in the programme, even if it does pander to the Tista' Tkun Int sensibilities of the punters?

I don't think so.

Eureka

L-orizzont, the General Workers' Union daily, trumpeted last Tuesday that the government is going to monkey with the industrial relations legislation. Shock, horror were the watchwords of Mr Tony Zarb's rallying cry to the workers of the world, who were called to unite before this onslaught on their very fundamentals.

I am confused.

In the Budget Speech, the PM, wearing his Minister of the Purse hat, had said, quite a number of days before, that when public holidays happen to fall on the weekend, they will not entitle employees to an additional day's leave. Precisely how did the GWU, and the other unions, for that matter, think the government was going to introduce this measure, pray?

By waving a magic wand or something?

From day one it was going to take an amendment to the law (a law that many people think is too skewed in favour of employees anyway, but that's another argument altogether) and I have to say that the GWU and its colleagues leaping onto their high horse at this stage smacks too much of spinning and politicking for my liking.

The government is not going to monkey about with the law for the fun of it, just to create a precedent, as it were, as l-orizzont was, somewhat disingenuously, implying, but simply to put into effect a budget measure.

It may be a measure with which you agree or not, but if the latter is the case, then attack the measure and not the means being adopted to - erm - adopt it.

Because if you do it that way, you run the risk of nasty, snide-remark-making people like me wondering out loud whether you don't, actually, have a cogent argument against the measure, if you have to resort to attacking the way it is to be brought in.

And just to be really facetious about the whole thing, if the government wants to monkey around, but not with the Employment & Industrial Relations Act (the Holy Grail that the unions are so protective about except when they break it) why doesn't the government just change the Public Holidays Act or whatever the heck it's called?

It might lead to Christmas being declared not to be a public holiday in some years but, hey, who cares? If that's all it will take to stop the unions whining, it would be worth it.

Quarter of a century down, more to go

Last Tuesday, a motley, not to say graying and expanding, crew assembled at Crianza in Archbishop Street to celebrate the 25th anniversary of their graduating into one of the world's oldest professions.

The fact that Strait Street was not millions of miles away, it may be said, was not completely coincidental, and if you think lawyering is not one of the oldest professions, if not the oldest, consider the opening words of the bible.

For the benefit of those of you who are unfamiliar with the Good Book, the words are "First, there was chaos".

One judge, three magistrates (one present only in absentia (!) and one the "mere" spouse of a celebrant), two ministers of state, the new head of the civil service, one columnist of ill repute and sundry other notaries and advocates were among the assembled company, the Class of '79, and a very good year it was too.

We were also supposed to have an MEP with us but he was off doing MEP things, so he couldn't make it.

Four others were off in parts distant and a few others yet were unavoidably detained, though I am happy to report that the detention was related to the performance of professional duties and not one imposed at the Republic's pleasure.

And then there were the ones who just didn't bother but they just didn't bother when they were students, either, so they weren't really missed.

All in all, though, it was an excellent evening of travelling down memory lane and wondering how we had all, happily, managed to survive the trials and tribulations of a quarter of a century of doing what we were trained to do at Tal-Qroqq, way back then.

bocca@waldonet.net.mt