Reference is made to the article ‘Details on court experts “racket” proving elusive’ (June 14).
In February, questions by this newspaper about court-appointed expert Martin Bajada were answered on the basis of comments given by the Office of the Chief Justice, as is the usual procedure when information sought refers to members of the judiciary. In May, further questions were put forward by the Times of Malta.
This time round, questions referred to all court-appointed experts. Again, these questions were answered on the basis of comments given by the Office of the Chief Justice.
Naturally, the Office of the Chief Justice could not provide information about pending acts of inquiry or about procedures covered by confidentiality according to law.
In fact, it was also advised by the Data Protection Commissioner that providing certain information about identifiable court experts would go against the DPA unless specific consent is obtained for such disclosures, especially considering that these experts are appointed at the discretion of the inquiry magistrate and such list of experts is not made public by virtue of any law. On June 1, the Times of Malta sent a request for information as per FOI Act.
This request is being considered and no decision has yet been taken. A reply will be sent in due course according to law.
On the other hand, in the light of the Bonello Report on the Holistic Justice Reform, an exercise was started early this year with respect to the current experts serving at the law courts.
A due diligence form was sent to all experts requiring them to submit such form togetherwith, among others, evidence of their warrant or equivalent certification and a recent police conduct certificate.
Concurrently, the relevant professional bodies are being consulted to ascertain that the qualifications indicated by the court expert are accredited.
By means of this exercise, an updated database of experts is being compiled, which would be updated from time to time. This list would be made available to the judiciary.
It is relevant to remark that, for the first time, a regulatory exercise is being undertaken with respect to the system of court experts.