The court's intention

I refer to the article appearing in yesterday's issue of The Times entitled Chief Justice Asks Commission To Probe Lawyer's Claims. It would appear that both the reporter and Emy Bezzina have missed completely the tenor and purport of the minute (not decree) registered on Monday by the Constitutional Court (not by the Chief Justice).

Even from a cursory reading of that minute it should be quite clear that the Constitutional Court was not asking the Commission for the Administration of Justice to investigate any alleged irregularity by the Office of the Attorney General or by the courts (as the report implies) but to investigate whether action should be taken against Dr Bezzina as signatory of the application of appeal, for abuse of the judicial process.

The court, in fact, noted in the minute that since the appeal had been withdrawn by the appellant, it felt it could not proceed in terms of articles 994 ("Use of prohibited words etc.") and 996 ("Excess by advocate etc.") of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, but instead referred the matter to the said commission for appropriate action, if any, against the said advocate.

Editorial note:

The court minute in question also says the following: The Times has opted to carry it in Maltese without translating it to let readers draw their own conclusions:

"... fir-rikors tal-appell... saru diversi allegazzjonijiet fil-konfront tal-Uffiċċju tal-Avukat Ġenerali tar-Repubblika kif ukoll fil-konfront tal-Prim Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili u anke indirettament fil-konfront tal-Qorti tal-Appell Kriminali li din il-Qorti tħoss li ghandhom jiġu sindakati mill-Kummissjoni għall- Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja..."