Editorial

In a disturbing example of patricide, a jury panel last week returned a 7-2 not guilty verdict and cleared the son of murdering his father. It does not say anything for the victim that his entire family greeted the verdict with relief and applause. Public opinion, shocked by the evidence given in court by the family, fully endorsed the jury's decision. Still, it needs to be remarked, in case anybody concludes that he can get away with murder, that it is intrinsically wrong to take life.

Having said that, it is salutary to remember how far we have travelled with our system of justice since 1811 when a petition was drawn up in Malta for consideration by the government of His Britannic Majesty. This demanded, among other things, the creation of independent tribunals and the adoption of the jury system à l'anglaise.

More daringly the petition asked for a constitution that united what it referred to as their "ancient, free and only legitimate government with that of the English Constitution". The petition was regarded balefully by General Hildebrand Oakes. He dismissed the public servants who refused to withdraw their names. Those whom he could not, transmitted the petition anyway, complaining of "terror... without limit".

The Royal Commission sent to Malta in 1811 to report on, among other things, the judicial establishment bluntly stated that this was characterised by widespread corruption and excessive delays in hearing cases. Judges' incomes depended on casual fees. It recommended they be paid a fixed salary and that their dismissal from office should not be a matter for the head of government but for the King-in-Council.

Governor Sir Thomas Maitland ("King Tom") was not having any of this. Instead, a Supreme Council of Justice was set up with him as its president, below him the Attorney-General. A Court of Appeal and the civil, criminal, commercial and judicial courts were in put place as was a jury system to which some members of the legal profession at the time objected.

None of this prevented Sir John Gaspard Le Marchant some 40 years later from complaining to London that the administration of the courts was lamentable thanks to the fact that anybody disqualified from serving with other departments was transferred there. But politics, colonial and local, also played a hand. The language question was later to bring this in sharp relief as was, for well-nigh 70 years, the question of loyalty to England or to Italy.

It is one of the less pleasant experiences of our system that there have been occasions, very few but even one is enough, when political affiliations, declarations and loyalties threatened the integrity of the jury system. This should worry us because if and when jurors cave in to pressures they cease to be "good men and free" and governments may feel tempted to tamper with the jury system. In this case of patricide, free as it was of all political considerations and influences, it worked to perfection.

However, it continues to be our experience that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, indeed delayed in some cases to an extent that justice is itself denied. Reforms and attempts at reform have been plentiful but a culture of delay apparently can never be eliminated.

Yet, our courts for the most part carry out their duties without fear or favour and the principle of a prisoner being fairly tried by his peers remains strong. We do well to remind ourselves it is not given to many countries to make these claims.