Labour is wrong to oppose proposed pay rises for the judiciary, irrespective of what popular opinion or the current economic circumstances may be. If this country wants to attract high quality people to the Bench, and we should be seeking nothing less, then it can only do so if it provides much more reasonable remuneration.
Judges and magistrates do not come from jobs that earn their occupants the minimum wage. They come from the legal profession, whose members, particularly the more successful ones, have the potential to earn far more than the average man in the street.
It is standard practice abroad for members of the judiciary to be paid less than high-flying lawyers. But the situation in Malta is pitiful, since the amount, at €50,000 per annum, is too low in relative terms. The government’s proposal to raise this amount by €12,000 over a three-year period is not only fair, but absolutely necessary.
The danger we face with such a short-sighted and jealous attitude to earnings is that quality will inevitably drop. This also applies to the political field, where ministers’ earnings – due to a communications debacle on the government’s part – are considerably lower than what is necessary.
The judiciary’s current earnings may sound healthy to some. But how many lawyers with experience, high earning potential and financial commitments are likely to accept such an appointment to the detriment of their lifestyle? Not many, one would wager.
And worse, it could lead to a situation where the ones who are accepting only do so for two reasons: either because they are not doing as well in the legal profession as some of their colleagues or because they have already made enough money to enable them to put financial considerations aside. This is not at one end of the scale desirable or at the other end adequate.
The Chief Justice’s attitude to the Opposition’s approach to the wage issue was most professional: he made it clear at the opening of the forensic year that even if agreement on this matter is not reached, he would still insist on the other reforms being implemented.
However, he did point out, quite correctly, that demands on members of the judiciary had been increasing every year without an improvement in pay or resources.
A demoralised judiciary is not healthy for the country, but one that cannot function properly – partly because not enough suitable candidates can be attracted to the job – is a disaster. Both the Government and the Opposition must recognise this.
Of course, the judiciary have a duty towards the public too and they should always bear in mind that that they must not only ensure justice is done, but that it is also seen to be done.
This means that the people who attend court should be treated courteously, that cases should be dealt with in a timely manner and, not least, that there should be a level of consistency in the manner cases are decided as well as in sentencing.
Though the judiciary should never seek to please the people with what they do, they must be aware of public sentiment and realise that widespread bemusement at certain decisions undermines the justice system.
This can be applied to imprisoning a woman blamed for her 16-year-old son not seeing his father on one hand, to allowing a man to effectively get away with deliberately running over another man – because the magistrate reasoned that a gay jibe is completely unacceptable to the village mentality in Mellieħa – on the other.
Hopefully, the reform that comes about will address a number of issues.