Putting people first

When it comes to justice matters, Labour's vision for the future is conspicuously absent. In the past three years, the opposition has resisted every sensible move to lighten the burden of the judiciary and reduce court litigation through alternative dispute resolution. It seems to be content with the large backlog which, in spite of a significant reduction in the past years, is still too numerous for a modern state to tolerate and the solution is not to throw people towards problems, in the hope that a bloated Bench will solve this perennial problem. The solution is multi faceted and requires the dropping of nostalgic fantasies about anachronistic judicial procedures and embracing new initiatives while maintaining what is good and efficient in the present system.

When I was a practising lawyer I remember the frustration of having to wait months on end for an uncontested claim known in legal jargon as kontumaci to be decided; we have solved most of that problem now; in 2004 the government introduced a fast track system for uncontested claims; a mere judicial letter duly notified and uncontested will be deemed to have the same effect as a judgment if the debtor does not oppose the claim within 30 days. For the opposition, hell broke lose the moment the government published the necessary Bill introducing this measure. The independence of the judiciary and access to justice were unbelievably cited as pretexts to oppose this step in the right direction... a step which is limited to uncontested claims.

The immediate results proved that the government was right all along; every month more than 300 letters of this kind are presented of which barely 15 per cent are contested; the other 85 per cent get judgment in under five weeks instead of the previous 12 to 18 months.

In his latest foray in justice matters, Gavin Gulia tried to belittle the significance of this reform. What a pity that an opposition spokesman is capable only of opposing rather than supporting measures intended to stop unnecessary litigation from reaching the courts of justice and blocking the system in the process!

Incidentally, this attitude is similar to the one taken by the opposition when the government granted the right to the prosecuting authority in criminal cases to appeal against decisions relating to bail, or judgments in criminal cases acquitting the accused. This measure has proved beneficial in cases of manifest miscarriages of justice or erroneous application of the law against the victims of crime in cases where guilty individuals used to be released for the simple reason that there was no review of a judgment of a court of first instance.

If the current success of the judicial letter in uncontested claims continues, I bet my hat that the opposition will soon start claiming that it was their idea in the first place!

In its efforts to assist self-employed persons and businessmen to receive what is duly due to them, this government has also introduced a law considering bills of exchange as executive titles at par with court judgments. Hundreds of unnecessary court cases have thus been avoided and prevented from reaching the judiciary's busy desk.

All these initiatives met resistance or lukewarm reaction from the opposition benches. What even baffled me - as a person rarely surprised by the illogicalities of the opposition - was Labour`s objection to transferring petty traffic collision cases to the Arbitration Centre. This measure applied only to car collisions where no personal injuries occurred. Hundreds of cases that used to burden the court system at the expense of more important litigation are now being decided by independent arbitrators. This measure was referred to by the opposition as a stealthy attempt at undermining the courts by removing litigation from the purview of independent judges. What is even more amazing, however, is that it was Labour itself in 1997 which had decreed that all cases relating to condominia should be referred to the Arbitration Centre. It seems that transferring court cases to arbitration meets Labour`s approval depending on who is in government!

And more reforms are in the pipeline. The Bill currently before the House will enable the Chief Justice, upon application, to take certain measures once litigation has, without justification, been pending for more than three years without judgment being delivered. A special property division within the courts system is being set up. Earlier appointment of appeal cases is being introduced and adjournment of cases shall be for a shorter period of time than present.

In the coming days, another Bill will be published introducing the concept of administrative justice, a one-stop centralised tribunal whose composition will vary according to the subject matter of litigation. This will, gradually, substitute the more than 100 administrative tribunals set up in the past 80 years; making access to justice simpler and less costly.

In brief this government's vision of access to justice is progressive and forward looking. We cannot accept the opposition's stand of trying to be all things to all people who have different conflicting interests. Above all, however, our initiatives have been based on putting people first; this should override all special or particular interests, whatever they are.

Dr Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice and Home Affairs.