Update 7.50pm - Adds Justice Ministry statement 

Efforts to obtain details on court-appointed experts and the payments they received have hit a brick wall and this newspaper has now filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Justice Ministry had initially refused to give details on court experts, their income and who appoints them. Citing data protection laws and lack of record keeping, a ministry spokeswoman said it was not possible to give the Times of Malta a list of all court-appointed experts over the past five years and which member of the judiciary had assigned them the task.

Individuals, usually specialised in specific areas, are appointed to act as court officials in both criminal and civil cases and this is done on the sole discretion of the presiding judge or magistrate. It is the court-appointed experts themselves who then determine payment, issue an invoice and are paid out of public funds.

What matters most is the friendly relationship between court experts, the judiciary and police inspectors

Various suggestions were made over the years, most recently by a commission headed by former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello, for a radical change but nothing was done and no legislative proposals were made by the government.

This led to the Chamber of Advocates to described the system in place as “a racket” where “what matters most is the friendly relationship between court experts, members of the judiciary presiding cases and police inspectors”.

Legal operators have complained to this newspaper about a number of cases where certain members of the judiciary regularly appointed the same experts despite their “dubious expertise” in the subject matter.

The lack of a proper system and in view of the fact that no register of experts exists, talk of suspicion of ‘nepotism’ can often be heard in the corridors of the law courts.

A court noted last month that Martin Bajada, who had been serving as court-appointed expert in hundreds of cases, had a criminal record related to falsification of documents and theft in a case that occurred abroad. He also served as court expert in cases related to falsification.

In view of this, this newspaper asked Justice Minister Owen Bonnici to provide information on which member of the judiciary appointed which experts and to state how much each expert had been paid.

Initially, Dr Bonnici informed this newspaper he would be getting the information, however, this has not happened so far.

About five reminders were sent, and the minister then referred the questions to the Director General of the Court, Frankie Mercieca, adding that “information which is not already in the public domain and can be made available without imposing a disproportionate burden on the court administration staff” would be made available. Still, no information was forthcoming, despite more reminders.

Promising to furnish some of the data requested, Mr Mercieca said that in the case of information on which member of the judiciary appointed which expert “the court does not keep records”.

He said he would have the information on payments prepared and pass it on to the newspaper. But nothing arrived and when reminded about it, Mr Mercieca said his office had contacted the Data Protection Commissioner and was told that the court should not give such information.

“We are informed that disclosing list of payments made to identifiable court experts is against the Data Protection Act unless we obtain specific consent for such disclosures, especially considering that these experts are appointed at the discretion of the inquiring magistrate and such list of experts is not made public by virtue of law,” Mr Mercieca said.

Just weeks before, Dr Bonnici had supplied the Times of Malta with payment information related to Mr Bajada who, the minister said, had been paid almost €500,000 in court fees over the past six years.

This newspaper has now filed a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Government reply

In a statement sent this evening, the Justice Ministry said that questions about Dr Bajada "were answered on the basis of comments given by the Office of the Chief Justice, as is the usual procedure when information sought refers to members of the Judiciary."

When The Times asked further questions in May, these were referred to all Court-Appointed Experts. "Again these questions were answered on the basis of comments given by the Office of the Chief Justice," the ministry said. 

It however said that the Office of the Chief Justice could not provide information about pending Acts of Inquiry or about procedures which were covered by confidentiality according to law.

"In fact, it was also advised by the Data Protection Commissioner that providing certain information about identifiable court experts would go against the DPA unless specific consent is obtained for such disclosures, especially considering that these experts are appointed at the discretion of the inquiry magistrate, and such list of experts is not made public by virtue of any law," the ministry said. 

A FOI request sent by The Times on 1 June was still being considered, the statement said. 

It continued: "On the other hand, in the light of the Bonello Report on the Holistic Justice Reform, an exercise was started early this year with respect to the current experts serving at the law courts. A Due Diligence form was sent to all experts requiring them to submit such form together with, amongst others, evidence of their warrant or equivalent certification and a recent Police Conduct Certificate.

"Concurrently, the relevant professional bodies are being consulted in order to ascertain that the qualifications indicated by the court expert are accredited. By means of this exercise an updated database of experts is being compiled, which would be updated from time to time. This list would be made available to the judiciary.

"It is relevant to remark that for the first time a regulatory exercise is being undertaken with respect to the Court Experts system."

ivan.camilleri@timeofmalta.com