A number of legal experts have welcomed a proposal calling for a stakeholder panel to periodically assess whether legal amendments were working as intended.
Legal amendments often sound wonderful on paper but end up not working in practice- Giovanni Bonello
But the Justice Ministry was lukewarm to the suggestion, saying such review already happened within Parliament when amendments to bills were presented.
The proposal was made by criminal lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, who last Friday argued that amendments to the judicial system were often introduced but never revoked or tweaked when provennot to work.
Dr Tonna Lowell had called for a review panel made up of representatives of all stakeholders, from the police to defence lawyers to the judiciary, to keep tabs on amendments to ensure a better-functioning judicial system.
Former judge Giovanni Bonello reacted positively to the suggestion.
“I’m all in favour of having such a monitoring system in place. Legal amendments often sound wonderful on paper but end up not working in practice,” he said.
Chamber of Advocates president Reuben Balzan was also positive about the proposal and said it should be given a try, while criminal lawyer and MP Franco Debono agreed that periodical review of such amendments was necessary.
The Justice Ministry was more cautious, with a spokesman saying over the past few months a number of bills to amend various laws had been tabled in Parliament.
Dr Debono, who has a pending Private Member’s Bill on judicial reform, reiterated his calls for a national conference on criminal justice, saying fundamental change was needed “in a holistic manner”.
His calls were echoed by Dr Balzan and criminal lawyer Simon Micallef Stafrace, who said criticism of the existing legal aid system needs to be seen in the context of problems within the broader court system.
At a conference last Friday, Dr Tonna Lowell and criminal lawyer Joe Brincat said the existing legal aid system was not functioning as it should.
Dr Balzan agreed with the two lawyers, saying legal aid lawyers needed to be properly compensated for their services. He noted that the Chamber of Advocates was currently discussing legal aid reforms with the Justice Ministry.
A Justice Ministry spokesman acknowledged the need to update the existing legal aid system and said the government was committed to doing so.
Dr Tonna Lowell also criticised the existing system whereby the Attorney General could choose which court to refer a case to without justifying the decision or allowing it to be appealed.
While a case sent to a magistrate’s court faces a maximum sentence of 10 years, criminal courts have no such restrictions. Forcing the Attorney General to provide written justification for his decision would easily resolve this problem, Dr Debono argued.
“The Attorney General needs to be able to exercise his own discretion – but he should be made to give reasons for his decisions.”
A ministry spokesman defended the Attorney General’s role, saying the decision on which court to refer cases to were “based on an evaluation of the gravity of the offence and harm to society”.
Calls for a specially designated prosecution unit to be established were also welcomed by commentators, with both Dr Micallef Stafrace and Dr Balzan saying a specialised unit would work better than the current prosecution system.
Currently, prosecution within inferior courts is handled by the police, although the Attorney General’s office is still roped in at the compilation of evidence stage.
Training for police prosecutors had increased significantly and claims they were not adequately trained were untrue, a ministry spokesman said.
During last Friday’s conference, Dr Brincat had said it was time for prosecution to be put in the hands of a dedicated unit, “and not left in the hands of amateurs”.