Scheduling of court sittings

Reference is made to Charles Micallef’s letter under the heading Frustration At The Law Courts (August 30).

I will not enter into the merits of the significant administrative improvements the courts have witnessed throughout the past decade and this so as not to give the impression that I am out for self- praise. After all, all that has been achieved at the courts throughout these past years was the fruit of my predecessors as well.

My reply to a previous letter on the same subject was not aimed at defending systems and procedures which, after all, I do not make but are regulated by law and administered by the members of the judiciary and the court registrars. Most of the proceedings going on in all court halls are regulated by the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta) and by the Criminal Code at Chapter 9 of the same laws.

The scheduling of court sittings is a complex matter and it does not always pay to stagger court cases. It is to be mentioned, however, that various judges and magistrates use this system. But it appears that Mr Micallef chose to mention those cases which, for justifiable reasons, do not always follow a strict timing regime and instead opted to mention what is being done in England as if to belittle our system.

In order to expedite hearings, it sometimes pays to group various cases within the same time bracket. There are instances where the lawyer or the police prosecuting officer might be caught up in another court hall. There are instances where one of the parties or the legal representative do not turn up or instances where court-appointed experts are not present in the court hall. In such circumstances the court acts responsibly and effectively by taking cognisance of other cases, which might have been scheduled to be heard within the next hour or two, instead of waiting for the next sitting.

There are instances where the courts group together cases where the parties to the case or the accused are represented by the same lawyer. This enables the judge or magistrate to dispense of a number of cases while the lawyer is present in that court hall.

As for the cancellation of proceedings, there are various instances where a sitting has to be postponed or cancelled on the same day; judges, magistrates, lawyers, prosecuting officers, parties to a case and the accused are all subject to being sick on the day. A magistrate may be called on an inquiry if s/he is the duty magistrate on that day. No kind of sophisticated technology can foresee such instances.

If these minor inconveniences are seen as abuse of the public at large, or should be the yardstick upon which to judge the country’s trust in the judicial system then I rest my case.

Trust is not based on how long John Smith waits in the courts’ corridors but on much more relevant issues which, in their absence, would undermine a country’s democratic credentials.

And that would be more than just silly!