Editorial

It may sound hard to believe that in 2006 a man is still trying to convince a modern legal system that DNA evidence may be used to remedy a previous injustice. After all, this ground-breaking technique has been used in the courts with resounding success to clear up confusion over the identity of the perpetrators of so many crimes in recent years.

But truth is indeed sometimes stranger than fiction. A prominent Maltese businessman was forced to go through the long and arduous - not to say costly - process of taking his case against Malta to the European Court of Human Rights. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and he appears to have won the day.

In a nutshell, the man was married to a woman who gave birth to a child he claimed from the start was not his. However, an anachronistic law, that among other things required him to prove the adultery of his wife and that the birth had been concealed from him, made his claim difficulty to prove. As technology advanced and DNA evidence became readily available, the man thought he could have a second bite at the cherry.

There was one seemingly surmountable obstacle: that the Civil Code laid down that any paternity application must be made within six months of a child's birth. But rather than, at least, call into question the status of an unworkable law, Malta's highest judicial authority, the Constitutional Court, ruled he could not proceed on the lines he had deemed fit.

Perhaps only because he was fortunate to have enough money and resources to contest the issue, the man was undeterred where many others would have given up.

Now, a higher authority, presuming Malta bows to the decision of the ECHR, has told him he can proceed, in a judgment that may have a profound impact on his family and perhaps a number of others in a similar predicament.

It is clear that in spite of gentle amendments in 1993, this law on paternity is outdated. Science has moved on an age since then and the developments must be recognised in our legislative frameworks.

The law is also flawed. Though a time limit is desirable in any civil proceedings so as to establish a cut-off point for any potential action, surely six months is appallingly short. Legislators should act immediately to ensure it is extended to a period of at least three years for cases that have taken place since this day.

And they must also make it possible, by providing an appropriate timeframe, for people who are currently in the businessman's position to take advantage of the advancement in science.

This ruling by the ECHR is indeed a landmark judgment because its ripple effect may be felt way beyond Malta's shores. But it also sends a loud and clear message to the wheels of justice in our own justice system.

It is implicitly telling the legislators to get their act together and ensure there is a coherent programme to update areas of the law that are outdated due to the advancement of science and technology.

It is perhaps also telling our judges to be less literal in their interpretation of the law and to don the hat of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights as they make decisions of this nature.

A lot of time, money and embarrassment could have been avoided in this case if they had done that. And, more importantly, justice would have been done from the start.