It was not a rare court report really, that which appeared in The Times last Tuesday, for corruption wears more than an occasional dress. Two businessmen and three customs officials were found guilty of bribery intended to keep €120,000 in duty out of the customs coffers.
The businessmen imported 600 cordless phones, six Panasonic video cameras and 24 gambling machines using a groupage container on three separate occasions. They had approached a stevedore and asked him to arrange that the customs officers register the contents of the container as "other goods" in order to avoid paying the full duty due on them.
The stevedore in turn told two customs officers and a bond operator with Sea Malta that the two businessmen were offering "a tip" for their items to be released. The two officials accepted although exactly how much they were paid somehow did not transpire in the proceedings. The police had been keeping an eye on the situation at the customs offices, as word had reached them that a lot of merchandise was being released without payment of duty, the court heard.
After the third time that goods were imported by the businessmen, the police latched onto them and carried out investigations into their previous transactions, ran the report. They also carried out a search of their homes and found some of the items on which duty had not been paid.
The court handed down jail sentences, suspended, and perpetual general interdiction.
So what's odd about all that and why focus on it for comment? Because the crime took place in August and September 1992, that's why. In addition, court procedures against the men only started in 1994. The court deemed that the delay (between 1992 and 1994) was not the fault of the accused and took that into account in delivering judgment.
Justice took all of 17 years to wend its course, 15 of them in the courts. The delay was such that the two prosecuting police inspectors are now Police Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner respectively.
I do not know whether, when the day of judgment finally arrived, the inordinate delay in its emergence was discussed at all. Court reports do not go into much detail even if, in this case, the news lay in the 15 years it took for the proceedings to be concluded.
Both police officers are well known for their focus and integrity. So much so that they have made it to the pinnacle of the force. The magistrate who delivered judgment is relatively young and was not in that seat when the proceedings started in 1994. And she too has made a name for herself for being no slouch.
Why, then, the delay? A simple explanation from the Justice Minister would be in order. It would be still more welcome if he gave data of the number of cases which have been outstanding for 10 or more years, classifying them in categories appropriate to the workings of our law courts.
Such details would make highly interesting reading. It would help many citizens to share their experiences. For the amazing thing is that the 17-year-old customs evasion affair is by no means an extraordinarily lengthy case. For one reason or another there are far too many cases of whatever nature still not decided upon by the courts. In some of them litigants lengthen proceedings purposely.
In others responsibility lies with officials appointed by the court. Then there are the lawyers and their availability. Finally there is the load burdening the members of the judiciary, plus the fact that not all those members have been known through time to work at the same appropriate speed.
Not all delays are of the same nature or have similar consequences. Some, going back even several decades, are about divisions of inheritances or litigation about property ownership. Not delays to be encouraged, but not necessarily involving human suffering. Then there are delayed cases which do involve such suffering.
In an unpleasant visit to the law courts some years ago an agitated lady approached me with an enquiry. She became more agitated when I told her I was not a lawyer, did not know my way about the courts or their workings, and could not give her a reply.
Who can give me a reply in this accursed place, she cried. It turned out that she was in a separation case and had been toing and froing for years. She was still a handsome woman, but her best was behind her, eaten by her long wait for an outcome of one sort or another.
There must be many other human tragedies winding their painful way along the corridors of our law courts. Some progress has been made. But not enough. Not nearly enough. The current Justice Minister - young, serious and focused - will say that he's doing his best.
He faces a Herculean task. His best, no matter how good it is, cannot be enough. There needs to be a plan of determined action, subject to public scrutiny, open and transparent. That is why I call on the Justice Minister to come up with the full details, plus a regular (say quarterly) update on them. Let the public keep track of the injustice of delays. That might act as a spur to all those involved in the process.