Opposition spokesman for justice José Herrera told Parliament on Wednesday that the opposition backed Franco Debono’s private motion for reforms in justice and home affairs.
Speaking after Dr Debono ended his three-sitting exposé, Dr Herrera said that while they might not agree fully with all the 24 points in the motion, they agreed with most of them since they were common to the motion which the opposition itself had presented.
Malta’s forensic set-up was in a disastrous state and among the worst in the EU, he said. He could not understand how the forensics department formed part of the competition department when these two sectors were clearly unrelated. It was totally unacceptable that the government did not have the necessary equipment to have its own database. Furthermore, DNA and fingerprint tests had to be outsourced through private companies.
Dr Herrera agreed that there should be a separation of the roles of inquiring magistrates and magistrates who sat in judgement. The former had an investigative role while the latter had to base their decisions solely on what they heard in court. The two roles were incompatible.
What was certainly needed were specialised inquiring magistrates with powers to act ex-officio and who were backed by a support structure.
Dr Debono was proposing the setting up of a pool of specialised full-time judges to investigate allegations of abuse or corruption by governmental agencies.
The Bill presented by former minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici proposed that the Chief Justice be granted the power to choose judges to lead inquiries. Dr Herrera pointed out that today the Chief Justice already had this power. He did not agree that the Chief Justice be given an administrative, executive role and believed that he should have an independent role. There should be a separation of power.
With regard to the right to legal assistance and disclosure, he believed that this law required amendments to bring Malta in line with that of other countries in order to prevent a backlash.
Turning to the role of the Attorney General, he believed that this person had the highest rank after the Chief Justice. The role of the AG should be an autonomous and independent one. He was, however, sceptical of the fact that such an important person was also very close to the executive and believed it was time to re-define his role.
He did not agree that judges could only be censured in extremis. Judges needed to be accountable. However, he believed that judges should have higher remuneration.
Dr Herrera agreed there was the need for a revision of the drug legislation since current laws were in conflict with a ratified UN treaty on cultivation for personal use. He agreed that a drug court should be set up and believed that certain drugs needed to be rescheduled.
First-time offenders who had committed minimal crimes should be given reformative sentences and not sent to prison.