Editorial

Two interviews. Two points of view. One common theme: Justice.

In separate interviews, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano and the Parliamentary Secretary at the Justice Ministry, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, tackled various aspects of the judiciary, ranging from appointments to administration. They agreed to disagree on various points.

But there was one theme brought up by both of them on which they both agreed: The need for better, consistent standards of performance from the judiciary.

Some members of the judiciary work incredibly hard and some less hard. But the performance of a handful is sorely below par. Apart from the quality of the judgement itself, a main benchmark is the length of time cases take. After all, justice delayed is justice denied.

There are many reasons for the delay in the conclusion of court cases, reasons that sometimes have their roots outside the court.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici laid part of the blame squarely on the judiciary, saying that if they wanted to, they could insist on a case being heard and closed without numerous deferrals.

He also said, in the context of the selection of the judiciary, that those who made good lawyers did not necessary make good judges or magistrates.

It would not be just were all the judiciary to be tarred with the same brush. Naming and shaming publicly is not an option here even if the unfortunate aspect of this is that it may not always be clear to those outside the courts just who are the ones who deliver and those who do not. However, there is nothing to hold the Commission for the Administration of Justice and/or the Chief Justice to carry out regular and frank "appraisals" with individual judges and magistrates.

Some time back an attempt was made to publish tables on how many cases were pending or dispatched by each judge and magistrate but simple numbers do not tell the full story. Some cases are, by their nature, long and complex, requiring external input; others merely require both sides to be heard and justice to be meted out.

There are other shortcomings, such as the need for the judiciary to show what Dr Mifsud Bonnici called "collegiality", covering for each other's workload when the need arises. There is no doubt that teamwork would solve many of the problems and make the low performers stand out more within the confines of the law courts.

It is a sad fact of life that as professionals climb to the top of their career ladders they become more and more immune from censure, leaving behind on the lower rungs those who can be held to task by their superiors. Who would dare to stand up to a judge when the Chief Justice himself has no authority over them? The only stick is wielded by the Commission for the Administration of Justice - but it is far too big a stick for the day-to-day transgressions, the bouts of petulance and ill temper, the complacency when faced with whining lawyers and procrastinating court experts, the territorial imperative that sets the court door as the boundary of the workload.

Imagine if a clerk refused to work because the air conditioner was not functioning. Imagine if a clerk refused to take on the workload of a sick colleague.

Should the judiciary not lead by example, provided, of course, they have all the necessary tools at their disposal and are adequately compensated?

Having said all this, judges and magistrates deserve all-round respect, even if respect is earned not inherited.