Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri made it clear yesterday that even if a long-sought agreement over judicial reforms, including pay rises, is not reached he will still insist on implementing changes for the better administration of justice.
This is a simplistic and dangerous argument that renders the work of an adjudicator to a normal job... which it is not
Speaking during the opening of the Forensic Year at the law courts, the Chief Justice said the work of judiciary members had been increasing every year, without a rise in pay or improved resources.
However, reform should go ahead even without a pay rise, he stressed, referring to The Sunday Times article that revealed the Opposition is against several parts of a deal struck between the Government and the judiciary.
“After these declarations, it seems there are the expectations that the judiciary will not honour its side of the agreement reached between the association of the judiciary and the Government to give a better and more efficient service to the public,” he said, insisting the reform would go ahead.
Chief Justice Camilleri said he did not speak on behalf of the association but rather, as the law lays down, on behalf of the judiciary as an institution. He added judges and magistrates had taken the oath to administer justice in an impartial and independent manner and that was what they were going to do.
‘We swore an oath’
“In a few words, whether or not the Government grants the allowances promised to the judiciary to introduce a system to appoint civil cases, more sittings in the afternoon where needed and more training, I will insist they should still be implemented,” he said.
He hoped that if no money was found to increase the judiciary’s allowances, funds would be found for the necessary resources to ensure the system could become more efficient.
It was years of procrastination that led to the problems experienced today, he said, adding: “The workload is bigger today, but the measures to address this are taken years later, when in the meantime more decisions are taken that further increase the workload.”
Referring to one particular example, he said that when a member of the judiciary retired, his or her replacement was appointed many months later while cases kept piling up.
Chief Justice Camilleri blamed it on the working conditions, which he said were not good enough to attract older lawyers willing to take on a large volume of work and face continuous criticism from every side.
Months went by until a suitable person was found, he said.
Chamber of Advocates president Reuben Balzan, who also addressed those present, said he disagreed with the Opposition’s argument that the judiciary should not receive a raise because of the economic climate.
“This is a simplistic and dangerous argument that renders the work of an adjudicator to a normal job... which it is not,” he said.
Governments should ensure the judiciary had a good financial package, he said, because the profession was one of the pillars of a democratic society.
While the chamber agreed that the judiciary’s conditions should be improved, there was also need for accountability.
The only body that could regulate the judiciary was the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which at present was “toothless”, he said.
Dr Balzan said he knew Justice Minister Chris Said was working to address this problem and the chamber had made a series of proposals.
“I hope the judiciary does not become the victim of partisan politics. If political parties disagree about everything, they should at least see eye to eye on justice reform – there is too much at stake.”