Franco Debono lists areas for reform
Nationalist MP Franco Debono this evening continued to list the areas for reform in justice and home affairs as the House continued to debate a 24-point private member's motion which was presented last November.
Resuming a speech he started on Wednesday, Dr Debono said all the points in his motion involved major reforms.
He insisted that the working conditions of judges needed to be reviewed and retirement age needed to be raised. He felt the retirement age of judges should be raised to 68 from the current 65.
A review was needed on the method of appointment of the members of the Bench. At present, appointments depended solely on the justice minister. Was this wise in a situation where there should be separation between the judiciary and the executive? Most European countries had since introduced new systems and he felt Malta should explore the Scottish model where there was a Judicial Appointments Committee which gave the names of prospective judges and carried out a form of hearing of the prospective judges, although the Executive eventually made the appointment.
He also felt that the number of years of experience necessary for the appointment of judges should be raised because wisdom was an essential element of the work of judges.
He was pleased that work by the new justice minister, in which he was also involved, was making progress in the conditions of judges, which also included a better pay packet and support structure.
He expressed confidence in the current Chief Justice and said things were much better than the time when the Chief Justice and the Attorney General were too close to each other.
A review was needed, Dr Debono said, of how cases were assigned. Specialisation was increasingly vital and judges and magistrates should be assigned to the areas they were most familiar with. That was not always the case in the past few years, although matters appeared to be changing.
Another review was needed of the impeachment procedure. Was the current situation good enough? Coupled to that, was the Commission for the Administration of Justice effective enough for the enforcement of discipline particularly in cases which were not serious enough to merit impeachment? Should the commission continue to be presided by the President. He did not think so.
The time had also come, Dr Debono said, to review the procedures of the Family Court particularly compulsory mediation. In his view, mediation work should be done by the judges, backed by a proper system. Judges had everything that was necessary, including knowledge of the law and wisdom to do this work.
There was also need to continue to reform the police force. He noted that timesofmalta.com was reporting how a person had been awarded compensation after having been shot by a policeman in 1995. It transpired that the policemen had not been adequately trained. He was suggesting the creation of a Task Force for a stock-taking of the Force followed by a proper strategy for growth, anticipating rather than reacting to events and requirements.
Such growth and development was also needed for the forensics laboratory. With some work, such as DNA profiling, having been subcontracted to a private company, he asked if there was any law which regulated the possession of sensitive personal information by such a company.
He was also of the view that scene of crime officers should be independent of the police.
Turning to the prisons, Dr Debono regretted that structures were still not in place to grant prisoners the parole which they were entitled for according to law. There should be classification of prisoners and the prisons needed to become a true correctional facility. There needed to be more warders and they needed to have better working conditions.
Dr Debono reiterated his call for modernisation and consolidation of the drug laws and the setting up of a Drugs Court. He said he had reservations about amendments presented by former minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici, without consultation with the parliamentary group.
In his speech Dr Debono reiterated that this motion - presented on November 8 - should have been moved for debate before the Opposition's motion of censure, presented a month later. It should certainly have been put on the agenda of the House before ministerial responsibilities for justice and home affairs were split in January in the famous reshuffle from which the government had not yet recovered.
The debate was suspended at 9 p.m. with Dr Debono in possession.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Edmond Micallef
Jun 20th 2012, 22:38
Dr Debono's triumph over Gonzi's weak leadership is now being manifested by his bullying around and talking about pies in the skies.
Evarist Saliba
Jun 20th 2012, 09:17
Going through the list of suggested reforms one comes to the conclusion that the task is gangantuan, and cannot possibly be achieved without the full cooperation of both sides of the house,(which is rarely forthcoming, and in any case, needs careful handling) and after deep consultation with all the others parties involved.
It was therefore irresponsible of Dr Debono to vote for the removal of Dr Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici from office for not achieving all this in the limited time during which he was minister, a time during which he did the state of affairs in other areas.
S Farrugia
Jun 20th 2012, 09:00
Dear Dr Debono, you cannot seriously believe now that anyone is going to believe you or care about whatever you say??!! You cannot be trusted by both parties. After what you said about RCC and how you voted last Monday, you are simply not credible any more, so get a life somewhere else!!!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jun 20th 2012, 08:44
@ Dr Franco Debono.
You, and a couple of other NP members of parliament have taught the intelligent section of the nation that the most urgent of legal reform is that the electoral laws be amended so that a political party, or a coalition of political parties, that obtains the highest number of votes in a general election, would be allocated a minimum of three (not ONE) extra parliamentary seats to ensure stable governability. The present situation illustrates the dismal reality, evident to every reasonable person, that in practice we do not have a democratic form of government ruling according to the will of the majority of the electorate. We have a sham democracy at the mercy of the selfish whims of a couple of maverick individuals causing havoc.
ANTHONY PAVIA
Jun 20th 2012, 10:23
I am sure you would be the first to recommend the complete opposite if Labour were in Government and not your party. Who gave you the mandate to speak for intelligent voters?
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jun 20th 2012, 11:13
@ Anthony Pavia. today at 10:23.
It is my (unoriginal) opinion that only fools are "sure". In fact you are absolutely wrong in your "sure" conjecture that I would "recommend the opposite if Labour were in government". That is not so, I would make the same recommendation whoever happens to be in power.
Having said that I concede that KMB's last tenure of a five hear premiership, in the name of the MLP, clearly against the popular mandate, and the on-going Franco Debono/LP and JPO/LP shenanigans are
the most glaring example of the need for further electoral reform by increasing the allocation of extra rliamentary seats pragmatically to a working majority of more than one seat.
I do not require any "mandate" to express my opinion about the aspirations of intelligent voters. Feel free to express your different opinion if you can defend that opinion. It is a free country (at the moment) with no bombs, no burning down of printing presses, no ransacking of the Curia, trade union offices, the law courts, of political clubs and of the residence of political party leaders and no political murders.
Emanuel Curmi
Jun 20th 2012, 11:58
@Dear Dr Saliba.
What a ludicrous summation of democracy in Malta. You are actually saying that in Malta , we were enjoying a democracy i.e. until an upstart like Dr Debono decide to throw the wrench in the works. The utopia you are striving for is no democracy but a soft dictatorship which stifles dialogue, accountability and meritocracy. One can debate the methodology of Dr. Debono (although demonizing the chap is more of a repressive rather than an intelligent approach) but one cannot overlook that his vision of reforms are beyond reproach. At least, I have yet to read any counter-criticism on his proposed reforms. Love him or hate him, Dr Debono has certainly helped to open our eyes and be more critical and demanding of our nation’s representatives. Suddenly it is no longer taboo to question the actions of our leaders and demand intelligent answers and constructive actions. Blind obedience and total compliance has nothing to do with democracy and may this lesson will not be lost on the PN, the opposition and all other future administrations.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Jun 20th 2012, 19:36
@ Emanuel Curmi. today at 11:56.
It is not my summation that is ludicrous. What is ludicrous is the success obtained by one or two disgruntled members of parliament in regularly obstructing the routine operation of parliament for manifestly personal vengeful reasons, with the co-operation of the opposition party, when the country is passing through a difficult period of an international economy crisis
Emanuel Curmi
Jun 21st 2012, 15:49
@Dr. Francis Saliba.
I have to admit that this the lamest excuse I’ve heard for procrastination. So according to the PN (and your good self) it is not so much the validity of the criticism which is being faulted but the timing? This seems to be trademark of this administration. It is never the right time for a second opinion or criticism. One just wonders how long the pot has been gurgling before finally spilling over. Fact is the Galdes Report was compiled in 1995 and even by a generous stretch of imagination one ought to expect a bit of headway to be made after all that time. At least, you cannot put all the blame on Dr. Debono for ‘regularly obstructing the regular operation of parliament’ because 17 years ago, he was probably still attending a secondary school.
Lawrence Fenech
Jun 20th 2012, 08:18
Dear Dr. Franco your days are counted either way you will be ousted from politics the time left is short and your efforts will probably bear no fruit.
John Scerri
Jun 20th 2012, 07:04
Who is going to speak on behalf of the clients?
Who is going to insist that for every payment forwarded to lawyers fiscal receipts are issued?
Who is going to insist the client has the right to know where his, her money went during the duration of a court case?
Who is going to insist that if Lawyers absent themselves from preplanned hearings the clients will be compensated for taking leave from work for nothing ?
Who is going to insist that once a contract of whatever nature including separation is written and signed by both parties who agree in writing with the contents of such a contract there is no way one can object at a later stage to accomodate convenience?
Who is going to insist that if it is clear from the start that the mediation session is going to be a waste of time and money , it will be decided not to continue with other sessions and the case will go directly to the judge?
The longer a court case takes the more money is forked out by the clients.
money...money....money .
Lawrence Fenech
Jun 20th 2012, 03:28
Certainly Dr. Franco first on the list is a change of government, the one we have has become a living nightmare.
Melvyn Mifsud LLD
Jun 20th 2012, 00:21
The judge's retirement's age should be increased to 70 - unless health problems have set in.
Retired judges over 70 are still serving in the Church's appointed tribunals and also the Ombudsman.
Also, this should apply to those retired judges who are below 70 who can be re-instated by agreement of the Government and Opposition - or after the latter's consultation.
I feel very strongly on this point when I socially encounter retired judges who are still very valid and could still contribute.
Fenech MD
Jun 19th 2012, 23:50
Xorta sar Prim Ministru, ghax hu qed jikkmanda!
Alfred Farrugia
Jun 19th 2012, 21:55
Don’t judges have enough work to do? Do the judges agree with Hon. Dr. Debono on this issue? How can the judges be mediators and judges at the same time and for the same cases? How can adjudication be mixed with mediation?
By definition “Mediation is an extension of or elaboration of the negotiation process that involves the intervention of an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power.” [Christopher W. Moore, The Mediation Process – Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Second Edition, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1996, page 8].
“A mediator generally has limited or no authoritative decision-making power: he or she cannot unilaterally mandate or force parties to resolve their differences and enforce the decision.” [ibid., page 17]
The above characteristic distinguishes the mediator from the judge. The “goal of a judicial or quasi-judicial process is not reconciliation or agreement between the parties, but a unilateral decision by the third party concerning which of the parties is right.” [ibid, pages 17-18]
Does the role or function of judges fit these definitions? The mediation process can be taught, as can conflict analysis and resolution. How many books on mediation and conflict resolution are our law students assigned to read? Who is teaching mediation and conflict resolution courses at our university to our law students and other students, apart from those following courses offered by the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies (MEDAC)?
Please choose the reason of your report below: