The judiciary’s independence is under “direct attack” by the proposal to replace its watchdog with “boards”.
“The proposals to effectively dismantle the Commission for the Administration of Justice and replace its essential functions with a proliferation of committees... make no sense at all and are unacceptable,” according to a 33-page report compiled by judges and magistrates.
In a rare public statement, the judiciary yesterday reacted to the first consultation document released by the judicial reform commission headed by former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello.
The judiciary also criticised the way the two consultation documents were released: they did not receive a copy and only learnt about them through the media.
The main bone of contention lies with the role of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, a watchdog of the judiciary, which throughout the years has been criticised for lacking bite.
While the judiciary currently has its own representatives on the commission, headed by the President, the Bonello proposals recommend a different set-up that excludes sitting judges and magistrates.
Agreeing that changes must be made to the commission, the judiciary is arguing that it has to be strengthened, not weakened by the creation of different commissions.
The remit of judicial reform, they stressed, was intended to strengthen the Commission for the Administration of Justice, not divest it of its powers.
The judiciary also feel the reform went beyond its terms of reference when it recommended ways of removing judges and magistrates.
“The judiciary will not shy away from addressing the suggestions, but... cannot accept a substitute committee to the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which does not respect European and international standards and guarantees.”
Practising lawyers will not apply if they’re going to expose themselves to the humiliation of being publicly rejected
The judiciary agreed the reforms should strengthen the commission’s disciplinary role to sanction those who behaved inappropriately, as to date these were not sufficiently robust or efficient.
It suggested the commission should be given the authority to take the initiative to remove members of the judiciary rather than wait for such a motion to be placed before Parliament.
Appointments to the Bench are another sticking point, and the judiciary are vehemently opposed to a public call for applications.
“Practising lawyers will not apply if they’re going to expose themselves to the humiliation of being publicly rejected,” according to the report.
The interview of a nominated candidate should also not be made public and just the names of the person chosen should be announced. The current system of headhunting had always worked as it ensured the best were chosen, the report said.
The judiciary agreed that handing down a sentence within six months was a reasonable timeframe, but said this should apply only to new cases.
They also raised a number of questions over how this system would function when obstacles arose.
Another area of convergence was the crucial need to provide better salaries, but they stressed this should not be a carrot dangled before the judiciary to give in to unacceptable proposals.
The judiciary agreed in principle with many of the recommendations put forward but more details were needed on how these would be implemented before it could give a definite response.
Reacting in a statement, the Government welcomed the judiciary’s participation in the consultation process.
It was positive to see that the judiciary agreed with the need to strengthen the mechanism for sanctions against judges who did not behave appropriately and to wrap up cases within a reasonable time frame, the Government said.