Test of faith in law courts

The bribery conviction and jail term handed down to former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo has prompted some discussion about confidence in the justice system.

When asked what they thought about the judgment, respondents to a vox pop often diverted the conversation to the trustworthiness of the judicial system as a whole.

Some people are happy to leave the judging to the courts and believe Dr Arrigo got what he deserved when he was jailed for two years and nine months.

Others, however, think the courts were too lenient with "one of their own" and Dr Arrigo should have been jailed for the maximum period - of four years and three months - since he let down the justice system.

The majority of those approached in the street for comment initially did not want to speak but later agreed to share their views so long as their names were not published.

On Thursday, Dr Arrigo was imprisoned for reducing the jail term of a drug trafficker, exerting influence on other judges to follow suit and revealing the details of a judgment before it was handed down in 2002.

The judgment was reduced when Dr Arrigo sat on the Criminal Court of Appeal together with another two judges, Patrick Vella and Joseph Filletti.

Dr Vella had been jailed for two years when he admitted to his involvement while Mr Justice Filletti was not implicated.

On handing down judgement on Thursday, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo pointed out the serious nature of the case and, among a range of considerations, he noted that he believed the bribe was not taken out of malice and greed for money but weakness and false friends.

"I'm no legal expert. The judge who decided the case had ample experience and I'm sure he knew what he was doing when he jailed Arrigo for two years and nine months. I have faith in our courts," one woman said.

Agreeing to this, a man said he believed that only the judge was in the position to apply the law according to mitigating factors.

Another man and his wife also agreed with this and argued that people had to trust in the justice system.

"We have to have faith in our courts. Whether or not he actually got what he deserved is up to God... We all make mistakes at times," the wife said.

In a contrasting opinion a man replied: "He deserves to be jailed. When you occupy such an important role you should never dream of accepting bribes. In fact, I think, he should have got the maximum jail term."

Similarly, a woman said she believed two years and nine months was "too mild".

Her friend agreed saying: "Had it been me I probably would have got the maximum jail term. He, as a person whose duty it was to uphold justice, deserved the maximum... Justice should apply to everyone in the same way."

A man went on to elaborate that he found it "unacceptable": that Dr Arrigo was being held at Mount Carmel Hospital, even though temporarily.

"He should be in a prison cell, like everyone else found guilty of such a crime," he said.

In Thursday's judgment Mr Justice Caruana Demajo left it up to the prison authorities to decide where Dr Arrigo would spend his jail term. He was taken to Mount Carmel on medical advice.

Despite the harsh verdict by some people, several felt sorry for what Dr Arrigo's family had to go through because of the case.

Others admitted they did not follow the case, which was extensively reported in the media.