The Chamber of Advocates says the close-knit pool of court-nominated experts is impenetrable. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Court experts are chosen depending on their friendship with police inspectors and magistrates, according to lawyers, who called it “a racket”.

The Chamber of Advocates said that the close-knit pool of court-nominated experts was impenetrable and the lack of transparency was “alarming”.

The harsh criticism was included in a 16-page reaction to the first report drawn up by the justice reform commission headed by former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello.

Calling for “a serious and holistic reform” of the system used by the courts to nominate experts, the chamber said it made no sense to have the same people appointed every time.

“The reform also has to address the qualifications of these experts, qualifications that are many times nebulous,” the chamber said.

Court experts are nominated to perform certain functions on behalf of inquiring magistrates with their reports having a bearing on how cases are decided.

The comments form part of the chamber’s reaction to the Bonello Commission’s report in June on ways to reform the court system.

Agreeing with many proposals, the chamber, however opposed the creation of a specific disciplinary commission for the judiciary.

Instead, the chamber believes disciplinary measures could be dealt with by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, a constitutional body in operation today, which will be given new powers.

The chamber is proposing legal changes to give the commission clout to decide and enforce disciplinary measures.

The chamber is proposing the creation of a disciplinary board set up by the Constitution and composed of five judges elected by their peers. This differs from the Bonello Commission’s proposal, which speaks of a disciplinary board excluding sitting members of the judiciary.

The chamber agreed with a graded form of discipline based on the seriousness of the misdemeanour. Today, there is no half-way: it is either a reprimand that cannot be enforced and more often than not ignored, or the removal of the judiciary through impeachment.

But it expressed reservations on suspension and demotion as disciplinary tools. Suspension could create a backlog of cases that will have to be re-assigned to others while demoting judges to magistrates could create the wrong perception in the public’s mind that a magistrate plays an inferior role.

The chamber said the disciplinary authority should have discretion whether to make public any decision it took.

Focusing on the method of appointment of the judiciary, the chamber agreed with the Bonello Commission that this should be handled by a specific entity but disagreed with the composition.

The chamber agreed with a public call to fill in vacant posts and a competitive process that included exams and interviews. This was criticised by the judiciary.

Attorney General urges caution

Attorney General Peter Grech has urged caution over a proposal by the Bonello Commission to hive off the prosecution function from his office.

In a reaction that covered various legal and administrative aspects dealt with by the Bonello Commission, Dr Grech said a proposal to have a director of prosecution would remove one of the constitutional functions of his office.

The AG office, a constitutional entity, serves as the Government’s legal advisor and also as the public prosecutor.

“If there is a real need, and not only an ideological one, for the appointment of a director of public prosecution, I tend to favour a solution where, the director operates within the AG’s office with a specific and guaranteed mandate under the AG’s supervision, as is the case in the UK,” he said.