Round about 2003, the name of the crisis of confidence in our courts was "Arrigo and Vella". The two judges (one of them the Chief Justice) took bribes and were sent to prison for that crime. This fact rocked the trust of the people in our Courts. It strengthened the perception that many had and still: our courts are not to be trusted.
In the beginning of this second decade of this century the crisis of confidence in our courts carries different names: one of them has the nature of a symptom while two others are of a more structural nature.
One name of the crisis of trust is Maximilian Ciantar. It could be (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) that the decisions taken by the courts about this young man were technically correct. However, they did not help a little tiny bit to strengthen people's trust in our courts. On the contrary, many do believe (I am not one of them) that there is something fishy going on.
People cannot understand the decisions being taken by the courts and it is the duty of someone in the courts to explain what is happening. Burying one's head in the sand only helps in the funeral of the rapidly vanishing trust of the people in the courts.
The media should also be attentive not to stoke the fire. They should investigate, but also explain what the law says and what the different options are. The media, particularly the online media, should stop publishing inflammatory comments especially when they are also uninformed.
Another name of this crisis of trust is called gross lack of accountability. In actual fact our magistrates and judges are accountable to no one and are answerable to no one. They can almost literally do what they want, when they want and how many times they want.
I am not saying that they abuse this power. What I am saying is that many believe that it is not acceptable for anyone today to have such an absolute power. I believe that the independence of the judiciary is important. The current situation, however, is not one of independence; it is one of total lack of accountability.
The third name of this crisis is the perceived inefficiency by several magistrates and judges. The inordinate length of time that many cases take and the protracted period of time for a decision to be reached are just two examples of this perceived inaction.
That was the bad news.
There is, however, also the good news. One name of the good news is Dr Reuben Balzan. The present president of the Chamber of Advocates is showing his determination to get things moving. He denounced what is wrong and is also proposing action.
According to a report in The Times of October, 3 (which I use freely here), Dr Balzan said that the members of the judiciary are right to expect autonomy and independence, but the people are right to expect that the members of the judiciary who they appear before acted with dignity and integrity in both their professional and private lives.
Dr Balzan said that the people are also right to expect that justice is administered effectively within a reasonable time and that cases are not repeatedly put off. People expect that judgments are not put off for years, and that sittings are held on time. They expect that when this does not happen, discipline is administered.
Dr Balzan said that unfortunately, the Commission for the Administration of Justice lacks teeth. If the commission felt that a member of the judiciary is not working effectively, or if his or her behaviour could impact on the people's confidence in the law courts, it could only draw attention to this failing. Other than that, the only other measure which could be taken was removal of that particular judge or magistrate through a resolution approved by two-thirds of the members of parliament. Everyone knows – and this is my comment not Dr Balzan's – that this measure is ineffective.
A few weeks after delivering that speech, Dr Balzan moved into action. He said that an "absolutely unacceptable" 1,000 court cases have been awaiting judgment for more than 18 months, with one having been deferred for final decision since 2004. He stressed the problem lay with "a few" of the 38 judges and magistrates. While the vast majority of the members of the judiciary had an average of around 20 cases, others had much more, such as 270 and 340.
He rightly considers this to be unacceptable and launched a new service by the Chamber of Advocates. Anyone who felt aggrieved could contact the Chamber which would request the Chief Justice to assign that particular case to a different judge.
The attitude of Dr Balzan and the Chamber of Advocates gives us hope that the situation could be improved.
Realistically speaking the lack of confidence of many people in the courts has to be seen within a scenario of general lack of trust in institutions. However, this can be the subject for another blog.