Opposition insists court tariffs are too high

The Opposition agreed with a Bill that will substitute the writ of summons by an application for the filing of court cases, but much more needed to be done to improve the situation at the law courts, justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia said in Parliament.

The main problem, he said, was that this government had raised fees so steeply that the courts had become inaccessible to many people.

It was for this reason, not other measures, that the number of court cases was dropping drastically. In 2000, before the tariffs were raised, a total of 7,333 cases were initiated in the superior and inferior courts and at the Small Claims Tribunal. In 2001 there was a drop of close to 30 per cent with the number of cases falling to 5,477 and in 2003 to 4,067. In 2004 the cases numbered 4,641 and the number up to August this year was 3,321.

Dr Farrugia was speaking during the debate on the Judicial Actions (Various Measures) Bill. The debate was opened on Monday by Parliamentary Secretary Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici.

Dr Farrugia said the parliamentary secretary had spoken about the fact that more cases had ended up before the Small Claims Tribunal and the Arbitration Centre, yet it was well known that this had happened because cases that used to be heard before the Magistrates' Court, such as collision cases, were being transferred to these two institutions.

For a start, instead of dismantling the courts by setting up so many new mechanisms, the government should show confidence in the institution, not least in the way appointments were made and staff assigned. It would also be better if Dr Mifsud Bonnici had a meeting with the lawyers on their experience in the Family Court and why some cases had dragged on while others were decided quickly.

The Police Commissioner should look into how creditors were collecting money, not through official letters, but through bullying. Furthermore, the current system of property auctions for the settlement of overdue bank loans needed to be reviewed. Properties were being sold at ridiculous prices as bank officials bid among themselves, to the detriment of the debtor who ended up without assets.

Turning to the Bill, Dr Farrugia said that once the new system was meant to save time and raise efficiency, the least one expected was a commensurate reduction on costs. But this, unfortunately, was not happening.

Labour MP Justyne Caruana complained that Gozo was often forgotten when reforms were made. For example, certain civil appeals and certain arbitration proceedings only took place in Malta not in Gozo.

Video conferencing facilities were introduced at the court in Gozo belatedly after many cases were put off.

With reference to the Bill, she said that the application was the simplest form used in the Maltese Courts. The filing of a writ of summons was quite complicated, and therefore using the application was going to simplify proceedings. Since justice delayed was justice denied, the application should simplify matters and would not delay justice.

In the application the words plaintiff and defendant were not used, therefore the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant" should be substituted by the appropriate words used in the case of the application.

The plaintiff now would have discretion whether to make a declaration or not. But in proceedings referred to as summary proceedings the declaration was still needed. One had to make certain clarifications regarding this issue.

She hoped that the Bill would bring about the simplification of court proceedings so that the Courts would enjoy the people's confidence and justice would be really done and be seen to be done.

Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg, reacting to Dr Farrugia's remarks, said major reforms had already been implemented by the government to improve the people's access to justice and this process would continue.

In contrast, a Labour government had moved legislation to prohibit people from taking legal action over ministerial discretion.

The opposition needed to urgently update its thinking on justice. On far too many instances in the recent past, the opposition had resisted measures which had since proved their worth.

Among them was the right given to the Attorney General to appeal judgments of the criminal court, excluding trials by jury.

The government had amended the penalties given for drug trafficking and drugs brought for personal use - thus making the distinction between traffickers and abusers. Were it up to the opposition, even those who had a small amount of drugs for personal use would end up in prison along with the traffickers. They would then emerge worse than before being jailed.

The opposition had also criticised the manner how the Family Court was set up, including the introduction of mediators. It was even claimed this reform would rob lawyers of their work!

But this reform had worked, to the extent that the jurisdiction of the Family Court had been extended to both the civil and criminal sectors. In the past, crimes such as domestic violence used to be heard along with other criminal cases whereas they were now heard in greater privacy before the Family Court presided by a magistrate whose duties were focused on this area.

The opposition had even launched a crusade against the introduction of official letters giving executive title for the recovery of uncontested debts, somehow claiming this impacted on the independence of the judiciary! Yet this system was already paying dividends. Would a Labour government remove this measure or any of the other reforms?

How could Dr Farrugia claim that the people had less access to the courts? In the first seven months of this year compared to the same period last year, the number of court cases had increased by some 500 to 3,328 and one also had to add 800 official letters for debt recovery, which would otherwise have been new court cases, and 216 cases which had gone to the Arbitration Centre, another measure which the opposition had resisted.

Dr Borg said the opposition had not only not updated its thinking, but it was not consistent. It was Labour which had proposed that minor collision cases should be channeled to arbitration for quick settlement. Yet when this government moved such a law, the opposition resisted it! He was sure that once this measure proved to be successful, the opposition would claim paternity.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.