Courts need radical action

Veteran magistrate Carol Peralta returned to his duties in Malta with something of a bang after years of distinguished service in Kosovo. I wonder if he had a feeling of déjà vu when he went through the pile of cases allocated to him, noting their dates of origin and type. He certainly took note of another old aspect of how the law courts do not operate – they do not work efficiently.

What triggered Magistrate Peralta’s ire was the fact that a case before him could not be proceeded with on its due date because one of the parties to it did not turn up. Magistrate Peralta would have none of that. He wanted to know why.

That is a question that thousands of citizens regularly ask concerning the law courts. They do that out of personal experience. Those who feel they are in the right reiterate the ancient observation that justice delayed is justice denied.

Those who know they are in the wrong snigger behind their hands and hope that, through the way the system works and their ruses, they can continue to delay justice from taking its course.

It is not just parties involved in litigation that are affected by and remark on the way the law courts operate. We read daily media reports on court cases which began years ago. Something must be wrong in a system which refuses to show significant progress despite the additional appointments of magistrates and judges to deal with an ever increasing caseload.

That factor suggests that the perennial delays are not due to the presiding judges and magistrates. That does not exclude a soft attitude by a few among the underpaid judiciary. Years ago a judge told me that when, on his appointment, he went into his job with gusto older hands suggested that he slowed down.

Hopefully such attitudes are now non-existent. That leaves the conclusion that it is the whole system which needs reviewing and revising radically.

A follow-up investigative report by this newspaper to Magistrate Peralta’s call confirmed that. All those who took part in it pointed out that the procedural infrastructure was riven with inconsistencies. For instance, all cases are notified to start at 9 a.m.

From the side of the police, when they are prosecuting the prosecuting officer is likely to have a number of cases to handle that day. He cannot be in several halls at the same time.

The same applies to lawyers lucky enough to be in reasonable demand. Can things be done differently? Some judges have tried to set cases by appointment, but apparently the change is not working. Supporting facilities may be one reason. The nature of the cases being heard another.

Then there are postponements, such as the case which made Magistrate Peralta speak up as sternly as could be. Some of them take place because lawyers or prosecuting officials are occupied elsewhere. Others, incredibly, because lawyers use delaying tactics.

Rarely is the reason given that the parties involved in a case or witnesses thereto do not turn up.

Underlying all this are structural features which have been crying out to be looked into for years. They include the role of the police as both investigators and prosecutors. That also applies to magistrates. In a broader context there is also the retirement age of the judiciary which leads to valuable experienced human resources going to waste.

Much needs to be done and could be done. That has been the situation for years.

I remember pulling the leg of the late Labour politician Dr Joe Cassar that in his many years serving as Minister of Justice he had not managed to reposition how the courts worked. I’m sure he tried his best, as have his successors.

It is patently obvious that best has not been good enough, both in terms of human and operational resources within the law courts and the system covering all others relating to them.

It did not really need Magistrate Carol Peralta to remind us of that. Still, it is good to hear a blunt voice speaking out from the heights of the system. Urgent response is required.