Over the last few months I had various occasions to bring up the issue of legal aid in Malta. It is my earnest opinion that the time is ripe to readdress the present system.

A few years back, the Minister of Justice had revamped the then existing system for purely economical reasons. Previously, the legal aid system was akin to that prevailing in numerous European jurisdictions, such as the UK and Italy. Back then, in practice, an accused was guaranteed the lawyer of his choice. The practice was that a particular defendant would approach a lawyer of his liking and present himself before the court accompanied by him. The defendant would then declare to the court his lack of financial means wherein the Court would, after examining the claim, as a rule appoint the said lawyer for legal aid.

This system, though not without fault, had the major benefit of assuring to any accused the right to legal assistance of a person he would trust. It must be appreciated that, after all, it is the defendant's personal liberty that would be at stake and, therefore, he must be afforded the best possible defence, notwithstanding his means.

The government, however, felt that this system was far too costly. In the light of all this, as stated, the system was overhauled and nowadays there exists a list of legal aid lawyers retained by the government. Time, however, has proven that this arrangement is not working as it should and this for various reasons.

It must be stated that, primarily, the retainer being offered - standing at €2,300 per year - is far too minimal, thereby removing out all initiative. Previously, this meagre salary was supposed to be compensated by the fact that such lawyers would also be included in the list of curators. Such a court official is nominated when, in a civil suit, the respondent would not be in a position to be notified by ordinary means, such as if he were living overseas.

Unfortunately, however, when Malta joined the Schengen zone, the lucrative aspect of being appointed a curator practically vanished. Nowadays, the notification process among member states is defined by European law and no longer necessitates the medium of curators. In this respect, we can see that our legal aid lawyers are today expected practically to work pro bono.

The institute of legal aid has consequently fallen into certain disarray with one resignation following another, reaching the point whereby, today, we find merely five members of the legal profession serving in this regard. More worryingly, considering the financial package being offered, it would appear unlikely that more lawyers, at least with certain experience in the field, would be encouraged to join the fold. From a legal perspective, the consequences of all this could very well be disastrous and could lead to a diminution in the quality of justice being meted out.

I must also emphasise the fact that, contrary to popular perception, our former system was, in reality, not that much of a financial burden on the state. In fact, from parliamentary questions I myself tabled, it results that the government used to disburse a mere €50,000 a year extra, a small price to pay considering the repercussions we are experiencing today.

It is fitting to argue that, after all, some government consultants are given a salary equivalent to more than the said amount for services they would be offering. It would appear, at the end of the day, that our government has been severely downplaying the indispensable role such court officials play in the due administration of justice.

In the light of the above, it is of paramount importance that the minister should consider revamping the present system and introduce one not too far removed from that previously subsisting. The main difference this time round should be the introduction of a more detailed and precise method of tariffs than the one we previously had. The idea presently being entertained by the government whereby legal aid would be imposed arbitrarily on lawyers on a roster basis and for no remuneration is simply a non-starter, bearing in mind human nature being what it is. The government's failure to address the existing crisis would only hint at its indifference to matters concerning this fundamental aspect of the administration of justice.

Dr Herrera is shadow minister for justice.

joseherreramp@yahoo.com