Respect for the rule of law and the fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice are central to any successful democracy. On the whole, this country has been well served by systems and individuals who have been independent-minded and independent of the state. The Judiciary, through its independence, has sought to be a bastion of liberty and justice.

Nevertheless, it has been apparent for some that there are areas that require improvement.

Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, speaking at the opening of the Forensic Year, proposed that an independent body should be set up to look into the judicial system, to see what difficulties exist and to propose remedies. When the Chief Justice himself raises such an issue it is wise for the government to sit up and take notice.

Which body should carry out such a study? The Chief Justice interestingly thought that the Commission for the Administration of Justice and the Judicial Studies Committee - two bodies which, at first blush, appear to be the logical exponents of such an exercise - were not suited to such a study because they lacked the resources. If resources are lacking, it would seem a simple matter to boost what exists with the necessary additions to enable it to do the job. So, there may be other reasons to which the public is not privy. More importantly perhaps, what would an independent commission be asked to examine? The Chief Justice highlighted a number of issues. There are, no doubt, others.

He spoke for everybody about the time it takes for cases to be heard and decided upon. While some progress has been made, there are still unacceptable back-logs in the civil courts. Justice should be neither denied nor delayed. The prevailing state in many of the Maltese courts is unacceptable, caused by lack of resources, the volume of work and, perhaps also, poor organisation. Not to mention procrastination, for whatever reason, to do what needs to be done, even if this may, admittedly, be beyond the Judiciary itself.

The Chief Justice rightly drew attention to the iniquitous system of witnesses being summoned to court only to find that the defence lawyer has decided at the last minute that he could not attend the sitting. A system needs to be implemented whereby witnesses are given firm notification some days before the case is due. Those who offend against the system should be held to be in contempt of court.

There is a need to review the legislation on what the media may publish regarding - especially - the names of individuals found guilty of heinous offences but whose anonymity is protected because publication is banned by the court.

There is also a need to ensure that the courts are seen to treat with greater seriousness "social" offences against the environment, under-age drinking, reckless driving, illegal fireworks, prostitution or similar cases.

The Chief Justice is utterly right. There is a need for an independent body to take a fresh and impartial look at the judicial system with three main terms of reference. First, to establish that the machinery of law and administration is in good working order and to propose improvements. Second, to ensure that perennial criticisms of the law do not go unheeded ("justice delayed is justice denied"). And, third, that the law is moulded to the changing needs of society.