Uncalled for alarm

In his article Undue Encroachment (November 20), the shadow minister for justice, José A. Herrera reached certain conclusions which, in my view, are not borne out by facts. The topic of discussion was the appointment of court experts to facilitate the work of the Court of Magistrates in relation to criminal investigations and the compilation of evidence in criminal proceedings.

It is manifestly clear that my parliamentary colleague is not aware that this issue was only raised following a set of questions put to my ministry by The Sunday Times. My replies and comments were eventually published on October 12.

No press release on the subject was ever issued, as claimed by Dr Herrera. For all that, I see no reason why we should not engage in a reasoned logical debate on an issue that has become topical.

To start with, I would like to make it clear that the government has no intention to interfere in the work of the Judiciary; its independence was and remains untouched. Neither do I intend to "arbitrarily" appoint court experts of my choice.

The provision in sub-article (2) of article 650 of the Criminal Code shall, therefore, continue to be observed.

This provision lays down that experts shall be chosen by the court provided that the minister responsible for justice may, after consultation with the Chief Justice, appoint one or more persons as official experts. So far, no minister responsible for justice has utilised this provision.

With regard to the annual cost of court experts' fees, which amounted to almost €852,000 by the end of November of this year, I cannot but fully agree with my colleague who opined that "there are occasions when the appointment of experts is capricious and there are other instances when the terms of reference given to such court officials are too generic and lead to unnecessary work and, thus, unnecessary expense".

Regrettably, it would also have to be pointed out that, on occasions, legal experts have also been appointed in instances where this course of action is expressly prohibited by law under the third proviso of article 548 of the Criminal Code.

However, my colleague claims that I very conveniently failed to make any reference to article 533 of the Criminal Code in my so-called press release. This article establishes that, where the accused is found guilty, he is also required to pay the court experts' fee. What happens in reality, though, is totally different. Contrary to what my colleague implied, only 14 per cent of the figure quoted above is recoverable. What's more is that this small percentage is even further reduced as, among those who are found guilty, some prefer to convert the fine (multa) into imprisonment. Indeed, 15 per cent of the amount recoverable is so converted.

In consideration of these facts, I feel that making even the slightest attempt to justify the expense involved by considering it "quite acceptable", as my colleague did, is hardly the appropriate line to take.

We are in duty bound to ensure that the funds provided by the taxpayer are spent wisely and that, insofar as possible, costs are minimised. In the statements I made to The Sunday Times, I treated the issue of court experts' fees cautiously. In fact, I invited all those concerned to come forward with any comments or proposals with a view to ameliorating the system for appointing experts and to curb the pertinent expenses. Any savings accrued would translate into more funds for the introduction of new measures and the enhancement of measures in force within the courts of justice.

Over the last few weeks, the initial informal reactions that have been made seem to point in two clear directions: (a) assessment of the possibility of substantially reducing the number of appointments made, and (b) reviewing the need for a proces verbal in relation to those matters that do not warrant an appointment.

Whichever way we go, it is in the interest of both the Judiciary and the citizens to, firstly, account for the expenditure of taxpayers' money and, secondly, spend it in the best interest of the public.

Thus I repeat: no encroachment is intended on the courts' independence. This is simply a plain exercise in common sense that steers away from undue alarm.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici is Minister for Justice and Home Affairs.