It is evident that, quite apart from the objective need of our law courts to improve their raison d’etre, the public hopes that the authorities will take special consideration of the importance, nay, the necessity, of ensuring truthful evidence.

This is vitally important and accentuates the need of further respect to the institution and the oath and adds to the dignity of the proceedings. It is most laudable on moral grounds, where the cannons are clearly set against the giving of false evidence against one’s neighbour. The notion of justice is based on truth and very deeply rooted. It is what justice, and therefore the judge, is after and, in fact, demands.

Penalties should be raised for clearly untrue evidence, and raised to hurt as a deterrent, even payable on the spot, if the court deems this expedient in any case before it without fear or favour.

It is well known that cases of false evidence have been going from bad to worse, weakening justice and making for a trend. Cases are known where the parties have converted the First Hall into a stage (no exaggeration this) with each witness giving intentionally false evidence, fabricated with total impunity.

If the trend continues, fines would certainly raise revenue.

Such a step would not merely make for deterrence but would also help both morally and financially on the road to sincerity and objectivity.

Our law courts were once considered as portraying the greatest legal system in the world, having made their own the best of other countries (Harding W.J.) and with a combined effort this should reasonably resurface, on the ideal plane with regard to merit. It is not for mortals to command success, though justice demands it; but we’ll do more, dear Malta, we’ll deserve it.