MP calls for the introduction of junior magistrates

Labour MP Jose Herrera has called on the government to consider the introduction of junior magistrates who would be employed full time but assigned duties of lesser responsibility than ordinary magistrates, such as cases currently before the Commissioners of Justice and chairmen of ad hoc tribunals.

Dr Herrera said in Parliament that his suggestion was based on the fact that the government was placing more responsibilities on tribunals. If this was the trend that the government wanted to follow then it would be wise to make sure that the people presiding over some of these tribunals were employed full time and therefore, without any sort of conflict of interest with their private practice.

Moreover, commissioners of justice often had two hearings per day on two days in a week and got paid something like Lm10,000 per year.

Dr Herrera said the position of junior magistrates, based on the practice in other countries, should also be enshrined in the Constitution.

The Labour MP was speaking during the debate on the Judicial Actions (Various Measures) Bill, the main purpose of which is to substitute the writ of summons by an application for the filing of all court cases.

He complained that the government was changing too many things too quickly with regard to the Civil Code and judicial procedures. One needed to be sensitive when principles and practices which people were accustomed to were changed.

Indeed, he did not really see the need for this Bill. Had the Bill proposed simplification of procedure it would have made sense, but in reality not much was being changed and where there was change it was cosmetic; a shift from a type of procedure to another similar type.

Turning to other aspects of the administration of Justice, Dr Herrera said the Family Court lacked décor and solemnity. The courts, he said, could not be treated like government departments and it was important that they retained a certain degree of solemnity in order to maintain respect.

The first priority, he said, should be to continue to strengthen the courts, rather than to dismantle them by setting up new centres and tribunals. The Arbitration Centre was an example of bad reform. The centre was now practically a court. Yet arbitration centres should be there merely to facilitate matters for voluntary arbitration, such as by providing facilities, and not to formalise the system.

Earlier in the sitting, Gavin Gulia, opposition spokesman on home affairs referred to figures given by the government on court cases. He said the setting up of tribunals was just a case of cases pending in one place being transferred to another and not that the courts were becoming more efficient.

One, therefore, had to look at the entire system, all the courts and tribunals. If there were less cases pending before the superior and lower courts this was not because there was less litigation but because cases had been shifted from a court to a board or tribunal.

Dr Gulia complained over lack of privacy at the Family Court. The infrastructure of the Family Court was also inadequate.

Turning to the mediators who looked into marriage separation cases, he asked how many marriages were saved since the mediators were introduced. What was the use of having lawyers being obliged to appear before a mediator even when the parties reached an amicable settlement?

Dr Gulia also referred to instances in marriage separation cases where husbands did not pay their alimony. This, he said, was a serious offence but he was concerned that the prescription period, at three months, was far too short. Prescription should be at least a year or even two, especially since payments were made on a monthly basis.

Mario Galea (PN) underlined the importance of the courts in a democratic society and the government's commitment to reforms aimed at more efficient administration of justice.

People in the street felt that it was those who were in the wrong who went to court and not those in the right, especially because of the time it took for a case to be decided.

Clearly, there should be a system which encouraged the people to seek justice through the courts. Justice delayed was justice denied. This was the area which the government was addressing in its reforms.

Court procedures were being updated without removing solemnity, although the court's solemnity should not come at the expense of efficiency.

The opposition, he observed, was claiming that the government was too hasty in its reforms. He felt the government was not hurrying enough. Clearly the people felt court cases should be decided more quickly.

His wish was that the judiciary would not be too sensitive to criticism and actually opened up to constructive criticism. Criticism did not mean lack of respect but a means to improve the courts.