It was a matter of time before Mr Justice J.R.’ Micallef made the news. With initials like those, you’re bound to make the headlines, sooner or later, in Texas or in Malta. His name popped up quite a few times in the media last week: first when he insisted, despite a debatable conflict of interest, on hearing a case involving members of the clergy; and then when Justice Minister Owen Bonnici described as “unacceptable”, an 11-year judgment delay of one of his cases.
Before I go on, perhaps I should declare a personal bias. I have an enormous amount of respect and admiration for Micallef. It started off as an inherited respect, much in the same way I always thought very highly of the late judges Maurice Caruana Curran and Joseph Flores, despite being generations younger and never having seen either of them in action.
In my experience as a practising lawyer, Micallef’s name has frequently been mentioned, and always in the most glowing terms. Any lawyer will tell you he’s one of a handful of brilliant judges who comes to court extremely well-prepared and well-briefed. This allows him to engage in intelligent exchanges with all parties and get right down to the essential points of law – a thing not all judges are able or willing to do, either because they lack the legal intelligence or simply the time.
Having now read many of Micallef’s judgments and having had real occasion to observe his impeccable judicial demeanour, I can safely say that I don’t have any reservations or misgivings about his judicial abilities and integrity. As far as I’m concerned, he’s up there with the best of them.
To put it another way: there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when Micallef eventually does deliver the judgments, which so far have landed him in hot water, they will be erudite, impartial and legally sound.
He may not be the swiftest of judges, but that comes from his readiness to err on the side of caution, or rather his unwillingness to err on the side of haste.
But the whole business is symptomatic of two greater problems afflicting, I suspect, all members of the judiciary: workload and inadequate support/resources.
It is extremely dangerous and shortsighted, not to mention unfair, of Bonnici to make sweeping statements about long overdue judicial reforms by isolating one judge and blaming him for all the widespread and deeply-rooted shortcomings of our justice system. To go even further and suggest that Micallef is casting a bad light on the “good work carried out by other members of the judiciary” just takes the biscuit.
I do understand that an integral part of a judge’s job description is to ‘judge’, preferably sooner rather than later, and I accept that 11 years might be pushing that envelope a bit far.
If Bonnici is serious about judicial reform, the first thing he needs to do is invest in a highly specialised workforce
Still, I am much more comfortable with someone who takes longer to decide a case in order to get it right and much less comfortable with someone who botches that case and lands it in appeal.
Anyway, curiosity got the better of me and I can now say that as far as judgment delivery is concerned, Micallef is definitely not the slowest of them all.
In 2012, he came sixth out of 11 First Hall judges, sixth again in 2013, and was placed eighth in 2014. These are not bad figures, relatively speaking.
I should also like to tell Bonnici that, within those hallowed walls we call the ‘Courts of Justice’, I have found daily goings-on far more worrying and insidiously dangerous than an 11-year postponement.
If Bonnici is serious about judicial reform, the first thing he needs to do is invest in a highly specialised workforce. I am talking here about judicial assistants and deputy registrars who are, or ought to be, legally qualified and fully trained – and properly remunerated.
There are some brilliant self-taught registrars and other court staff – I am ready to name them – who take enormous pride in their work and who are clearly unappreciated. These are also the people in whom the Justice Minister needs to invest. Because anyone with objective experience of a ‘top-down’ institution like the courts will know that it is always such people who make the system ‘work’. Their real importance is quite at odds with their humble position in the hierarchy.
And while I’m on the subject – which is one always that sidetracks me – I think the time has come for some very important ‘cosmetic changes’. First: the original court file should never ever leave the judge’s chambers.
I find it absurd that one case (which could easily run into six or seven volumes) is lugged upstairs and downstairs in suitcases, then lugged all over Republic Street, and finally made accessible to respective parties with a possible interest in ‘losing’ (or destroying) a document or two.
The Registry should house a photocopy of the file, which should in turn be available online. It is this latter version which should be made available to the litigants.
And there’s another issue which has long been bothering me. Most cases contain sensitive information which parties might not wish to make known to all and sundry. This applies to civil, commercial and criminal cases, and especially to family law. Having to access your file in a poky, cramped room that is always teeming with people – members of the public and other lawyers – is extremely inappropriate.
There is potential here for a whole host of awkward and compromising situations, especially if, as I fear, certain staff members lack discretion and a fully trained respect for confidentiality.
Hamlet probably got it right when he spoke about “the law’s delay” and was even more right about “the insolence of (ministerial) office”. He even had a sympathetic word for the “patient merit” of those unsung registrars.
But “the rest is silence” – to quote Hamlet one last time. More on other reforms some other time.
michelaspiteri@gmail.com