A restricted interpretation of the law seems to be at the heart of the ongoing controversy on whether two young students should have been granted a warrant to practise law.
The Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure demands, among other things, that such a warrant cannot be obtained unless s/he “is of good conduct and good moral”.
It appears that when judges were interviewing law students, it resulted that two of the candidates had been handed a conditional discharge by the Magistrates’ Courts in late 2009 and mid-2010 respectively in connection with theft.
In one of the cases, the presiding magistrate made a very sharp and telling comment, which has a bearing on the present controversy.
He said: “This case is very disturbing to the court. The court cannot understand how a person, who has no apparent material needs, should resort to theft to obtain something in a totally illicit manner at the risk of facing a maximum four-year prison term. Such behaviour is completely unexplainable, more so when taking into consideration the fact that the accused and her boyfriend are both students preparing themselves to a career that is both of high standing and carries a huge responsibility.
“With all due respect to everybody, this is not mere student, youth bravado but gross stupidity that could have disastrous consequences on the future of the accused. The only mitigating factor in her favour is that she returned the stolen items and admitted her failings in her statement.” Incidentally, the judgment is no longer available online.
The message is crystal clear. A person vying to become a lawyer, who at times would also function as an official of the court, must, like justice itself, not only be of good conduct and good moral but is also seen to be so.
Both the Chief Justice and the Chamber of Advocates argue that the students’ court case bars them from practising law. The four judges who interviewed the students evidently disagree and so does the Association of Judges and Magistrates of Malta.
The association raises two main points. One, that a conditional discharge is not a conviction. Two, the students cannot be said to have “a criminal record” and the “updated Malta Police certificate of conduct presented by each of the two candidates for the judges’ scrutiny was an unblemished one”.
It may not have been a conviction but guilt there certainly was. The two judgments make it clear both were found guilty of the offences they were charged with. This means it was established that both the material element and the formal element of the offence – the actus reus and the mens rea, to speak the lawyers’ language – were there.
As to the certificate of conduct, well, perhaps the time has come to make it compulsory on law students to produce a full certificate, as those working with children nowadays have to.
The Justice Minister was correct to ‘withdraw’ the warrant invitation until the controversy is settled. Not so was the Labour MEP who rushed into the fray only to embarrass her husband, a sitting judge, if not the Prime Minister and the government too.
May common sense prevail and ensure the law is respected both in word and in spirit.
This is a Times of Malta print editorial