Respect, independence and accountability

I refer to Allan Gatt's letter (October 9) Freedom To Criticise The Judiciary. I shall eschew the temptation to adopt Mr Gatt's tone and limit myself to making a few points in response to the issues he raises.

In the first place, it is clear that Mr Gatt has failed, admittedly through no fault of his own, to take into consideration the full extent of my remarks and therefore has not taken on board my basic premise: a strong and respected judiciary is the single most important pillar of a democratic society based on upholding the rule of law.

It is in front of a member of the judiciary that I and Mr Gatt and any other member of society would rush to have our rights upheld in the event that any of the other branches of the State seeks to deny us these rights.

For this reason alone, but not only for this reason, the judiciary must be set apart from the dynamic of conflict between power and rights and given the respect its role demands.

In second place, demanding proper respect for the judiciary and its independence does not imply that the judiciary, collectively or individually, is above criticism or that court sentences should not be discussed and even criticised negatively.

Judicial independence, however, will be obliterated if society demands that judges and magistrates take decisions based on populist notions of what should be done rather than on the law. "People's courts" only lead to mob rule, and our democratic tradition abhors them.

In the third place, a proper interpretation of my remarks on October 1 would include the reference I made, oblique as it may necessarily have been in the circumstances, to accountability on the part of the judiciary.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I would expect that if a judge or magistrate is given what may be defined as almost extraordinary respect, he or she would give equally extraordinary respect back.

The corollary to this is that a proper system of ensuring accountability would also be devised, as has been devised in other countries, even those with traditions on a par with ours.

Mr Gatt can rest assured that I am not naive or disingenuous: I know that the judiciary is composed of human beings who are fallible but I expect them to rise above themselves.

I do not, however, subscribe to the notion that uninformed snarling in the media, for instance, is a means to achieving this end and it is for this reason that I appealed, and appeal again, to the relevant components of civil society to take up the task of ensuring that we continue to have a judiciary that upholds our democratic aspirations.