Attorney General blamed for useless referrals
Judges and magistrates should fine lawyers or police officers who fail to show up in court for no valid reason, according to Justice Minister Chris Said.
“I would expect judges and magistrates to apply the law and, where appropriate, mete out fines accordingly… against the accused, parties, lawyers and prosecution officers who, presumably without just cause, do not turn up or who try to stall or delay proceedings,” he said.
This opinion was shared by a retired judge who said that it was up to the judge or magistrate to impose discipline in the courtroom.
He agreed with Magistrate Carol Peralta’s condemnation of the court delays brought about by lawyers and prosecution officers not turning up without notice.
Dr Peralta on Thursday called the situation “disgraceful” and “intolerable”. It was his first sitting in the Maltese courts after an eight-year absence, during which he served as international judge presiding over war crime trials in Kosovo.
The retired judge, who preferred not to be named, said cases were often rescheduled because the prosecution, defence lawyer, the accused or a witness did not turn up.
The Attorney General was partly responsible due to useless referrals of the case documents to the Magistrates’ Court, the retired judge said.
Lawyers used delaying tactics by not turning up for cases.
Another problem was that most MPs in the legal profession were criminal lawyers who had no interest in passing laws imposing restrictions to discipline themselves.
“Everybody is conspiring to frustrate the course of justice... but the buck finally stops with the judge or magistrate, who is there to exercise discipline even at the risk of being unpopular,” the retired judge said.
Magistrates should issue fines when any of the parties did not turn up without a valid reason.
There should, however, be leeway to cater for situations where a lawyer or a police officer got caught up in another case. “The situation calls for drastic action,” he said.
He praised the decision by Magistrate Marseann Farrugia last week to revoke the bail granted to a man who did not turn up for a court sitting. Her decision was overturned by another magistrate but later reconfirmed by a higher court.
“Perhaps fellow judges should adopt this no-nonsense attitude,” the retired judge said.
Two police officers, who also asked for anonymity, said the main problem was that most magistrates scheduled their cases for 9 a.m. and cases were dealt with on a first-come-first-served basis.
Police Inspectors usually had some eight to 12 cases a day, all scheduled for 9 a.m.
“We can’t be in eight places at the same time,” one of them said. The other added: “We have to turn up in court for every sitting, even on our day off… I think the courts should tolerate us being late. We’ll be working hard.”
The officers agreed that scheduling cases would be ideal but not realistic as it was impossible to coordinate times given the vast amount of criminal cases. Questions sent to the Police Commissioner were still unanswered at the time of writing.
The president of the Chamber of Advocates, Reuben Balzan agreed with the police inspectors.
While court delays were “unacceptable”, one had to look deeper into what was causing them.
“The bulk of the cases were scheduled for 9 a.m. It’s unreasonable to expect various parties in a number of cases, prosecuting officers, lawyers and witness to all turn up at 9 a.m. and wait there for their turn, which could be hours later,” Dr Balzan said.
Cases had to be better planned, he added. However, this was difficult in criminal cases because of the nature and volume of the cases.
“Some members of the judiciary have been scheduling cases and this has resulted in a much more efficient system.
“However, for it to work properly everyone needs to adopt the system, otherwise you still risk having a lawyer being unable to attend a case scheduled for a given time because he is caught up in another hall where cases are not scheduled,” he said.
What was the government doing to improve the situation?
Dr Said pointed out that the government invested in human resources and increased the number of judges and magistrates to deal with the caseloads.
“The majority of the judiciary carry out the functions of their office with dedication and commitment , delivering judgements efficiently and effectively. Any action taken by the judiciary which is intended to speed up proceedings and cut delays is to be lauded,” he said.
“The judiciary is expected to perform its duties expeditiously and to ensure that decisions are made within a reasonable time and that the judicial process does not drag on to the detriment of all parties involved.”