The Chamber of Advocates yesterday agreed with a magistrate who called the compilation of evidence procedure “archaic”.

On Tuesday, in acquitting a man of breaking his daughter’s arm, Magistrate Francesco Depasquale chastised the Attorney General and the police for denying the court the chance to hand down judgments expeditiously.

Sixteen months after the accused was arraigned, the Attorney General gave his consent for the case to be decided by the Magistrates’ Court. In handing down judgment, the magistrate commented: “If we were not regulated by an archaic system devised specifically to benefit the Attorney General and to impede the court from proceeding expeditiously and if the Attorney General gave his consent straight away... the case would have been decided long before.”

The chamber yesterday said it did not make sense that a criminal procedure spent more time at the Attorney General’s office than in front of the adjudicator. It said this procedure was introduced in 1854 so that the Attorney General would be aware of the evidence submitted by the police in cases where the AG was the prosecutor.

Over the years, while the number of jury cases dropped, the Attorney General’s power remained unchanged, it said.

Nowadays, this power was a means for the Attorney General to monitor and control all parties involved in the criminal process, including the magistrate leading the compilation.

The chamber urged the Justice Minister to carry out the planned reforms so that the “exaggerated powers” of the Attorney General in all criminal procedures would be revised.