The entire law courts system is dependent on the trust of the people, a trust built on tangible elements. An effective legal system needs more than a whiff of ‘Caesar’s wife’ about it, as do all the officers that form part of it.

The phrase ‘sober as a judge’ was born for a reason: anyone connected to the legal process needs to enjoy a reputation that is pretty much impeccable in the eyes of society. This is the only way a layperson can feel that the power of the law courts – which, in practice, has very few limitations outside of the constitutional checks and balances that are rarely brought into play – is justified.

And the phrase does not only apply to judges and magistrates because it is not only the members of the judiciary that will affect the outcome of a court case. The myriad legal officers attached to each case also play a pivotal role.

Which is why it is extremely worrying when Malta is faced with a situation where court-appointed experts do not enjoy the trust of those who form part of the legal system they are meant to serve.

The Chamber of Advocates had gone on record complaining that the close-knit pool of such experts was impenetrable and the lack of transparencywas “alarming”.

Such a public statement speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the lawyers are viewing the matter.

One particular expert, Martin Bajada, continued to be regularly engaged despite having a criminal record and repeated complaints by the legal profession.

Even more worryingly, things do not appear to be a simple case of mismanagement or incompetence, which would already be bad enough. The Chamber of Advocates has called for a reform that would also address the qualifications of court-appointed experts, “qualifications that are many times nebulous”.

However, ‘cronyism’, that national malady, has also been mentioned. Speaking in terms of a “racket”, the Chamber of Advocates says experts are chosen on the basis of their friendship with police inspectors and magistrates. There have been reports of experts seen lunching with judges and magistrates and, while it does not automatically follow that anything untoward is in play, the mere perception of untowardness is more than enough to ring alarm bells.

Cronyism is shocking enough when it involves any aspect of the infrastructure. However, it becomes immeasurably worse when it starts affecting the due process of law in a country.

The outcome of court cases –civil, criminal or commercial – is often directly and substantially influenced by the pronouncements made by court experts. Whenever specialised knowledge is required, the court expert carries a lot of weight and his/her conclusions are naturally taken into consideration by the adjudicator. In short, a court expert’s testimony can make or break a case.

Which is why there is a situation at the law courts where trials are being postponed and applications filed as lawyers cotton on to the fact that – judiciary’s discretion notwithstanding – the rule of law cannot function within a situation where the court expert on calligraphy has a criminal conviction for falsification of documents.

The law courts reform has long been promised. And, yet, despite continuous assurances that work is in progress, it seems as though they are anything but, certainly where it matters most. The longer it takes, the higher the likelihood that anomalies such as that involving court experts – which is far from being resolved and which is likely to end up affecting a multitude of cases, past and future – continue to arise.