Justice Minister Owen Bonnici has defended the use of government amnesties for law-breakers, insisting they had “positive aspects”.

“I believe that in certain cases, well-thought-out amnesty schemes constructed on objective and transparent criteria have their own positive aspects,” he said, without going into further detail regarding what these aspects were.

Dr Bonnici was contacted by this newspaper after Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri called for a rethink of the practice of giving amnesties to those who broke the law.

In a speech to mark the opening of the new forensic year on Monday, the Chief Justice said that the practice was irritating those who abided by the law and did not cut corners.

It also detracted from the public’s respect for the courts and the judiciary’s ability to implement justice for all, he said.

“I believe it is time for a serious reflection on this practice,” the Chief Justice said.

Dr Bonnici said he understood his views, “particularly given his background as one of Malta’s finest prosecutors”, but also disagreed.

He later added that successive governments had from time to time drawn up amnesty schemes.

During this administration, amnesties have been handed out for a number of offences, ranging from electricity theft to planning irregularities and even serious criminal offences. In fact, some 30 inmates walked out of the Corradino Correctional Facility following the 2013 general election when the government knocked 100 days off sentences.

Kevin Aquilina, Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta, has written about the subject and believes that ,while the practice is enshrined in the Constitution, it could do with a legislative revamp.

‘Discretionary, unfair’

In an opinion piece published in the Times of Malta in 2013, Prof Aquilina explained how the act of issuing amnesties was regulated by Article 93 of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not oblige the government to consult with anyone. The exercise is often “discretionary, unfair, secretive and partial. Its exercise is far from being complete, impartial, neutral, open, transparent and accountable,” he wrote.

Prof. Aquilina’s opinion piece questioned why the Attorney General, the Police Commissioner or members of the public did not need to be consulted before an amnesty was handed out.

“There is a complete interference by the executive in the workings of the courts,” he said.

Prof. Aquilina’s piece also explains that there are several types of amnesties, the first two being unconditional pardons and conditional ones. In the latter case, the person offered the amnesty will likely have to turn State witness in order not to face charges him- or herself.

Another type of amnesty is to grant a person a respite, either definite or for a specific period.  These cases deal with those who have been found guilty by a criminal court but the punishment is delayed or postponed. For instance, a court can order a person to pay a fine within six months of sentencing.

Other forms of amnesty include the substitution of a punishment with a less severe one and the outright cancellation of a punishment or part of it.

‘Move law courts to bigger building’

The Chief Justice has also called for the law courts to be moved from their current building in Republic Street, saying it was too small.

Reacting to this, Dr Bonnici was more receptive.

The minister said that moving the law courts en bloc elsewhere would be “a massive decision, which might not necessarily be a bad idea, but it would also have multiple logistical and financial consequences”.

The government was aware that space in the courts was a problem, and that was why it was implementing a plan to develop new halls, a new library and training facilities within the existing building.