Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1528159
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 MARCH 2022 OPINION 2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR KURT SANSONE ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 20 OCTOBER 2024 Will the magistrate's peers step up to the plate? Editorial MR Justice Lawrence Mintoff did not mince his words in what is ostensibly the first dressing down a judge has ever given a magistrate for "irresponsible behaviour". Mintoff was presiding over the Court of Appeal and the case in front of him could not proceed because the case file was not available. The case file had previously been in possession of Magistrate Monica Vella, who presided over the particular case in the first instance. But what should have been a normal transfer of files within the same court building could not happen be- cause the magistrate had taken the case files home. Testifying in front of the judge, Vella's deputy regis- trar remarked that the magistrate "is looking for the files". This prompted Mintoff to issue a communique in which he reprimanded the magistrate's behaviour, which had caused unnecessary delay to proceedings and inconvenience to all parties. He ordered the com- munique be sent to the Justice Minister, the Chief Justice and the Court Registrar. A communique coming from a judge is not some- thing to be taken lightly. Indeed, the word 'commu- nique' does not even begin to describe the anger and severity of such a communication. The magistrate's behaviour was not only irrespon- sible – this raises the question as to whether the files kept at home are in a secure location with controlled access, an issue for another time – but disrespectful to all parties. The magistrate's behaviour not only dis- respected the court, its officers, the lawyers and the individuals involved, who could not see justice meted out in a timely manner, but also the rest of society that deserves to have a judicial system that works well and efficiently. We wonder whether this was the first case of its kind but even if it was, the matter should be referred for disciplinary action to the Commission for the Admin- istration of Justice. It is obvious that Vella or any other member of the judiciary cannot be removed or disciplined on a whim or because someone decides they are wrong. Security of tenure afforded to the judiciary by the Constitution is precisely there to guard against retaliatory actions of those in power who may be displeased with the de- cisions members of the judiciary take. But security of tenure was never intended to shield the judiciary from public criticism or worse to excuse inefficiency, incompetence or wrongdoing. Constitutional changes in 2020 removed parlia- ment's power to impeach members of the judiciary and this was delegated to the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which in turn delegates disciplinary proceedings to a committee of peers. On a positive note, the changes created different dis- ciplinary options depending on the severity of the wrongdoing thus moving away from the stark binary option of 'no disciplinary action' or 'ultimate censure through removal' as was the case before. But the constitutional changes also removed the power of any MP to instigate a motion of removal and now it is only the Chief Justice and the Justice Minis- ter who can initiate disciplinary/removal proceedings within the CAJ. Reflecting on these changes in a 2021 opinion piece, former European Commissioner Tonio Borg had raised concerns at what he described the 'slavish obe- dience' to a recommendation by the Venice Commis- sion that called for the removal of the legislative body from decisions to remove judges and magistrates. Borg had raised pertinent legal points that merit fur- ther discussion on the chosen legal framework to re- move or discipline judges and magistrates, which he describes as flawed. But beyond the ramifications of those constitutional changes we should expect that Magistrate Vella, like all members of the judiciary, not to be above public scrutiny. In this case, her actions have received harsh criticism by a fellow colleague on the Bench. A colleague, who understands the deep injustice of having people turn up in court only to be told their case cannot be heard because of all things, the case file is unavailable because the magistrate of first in- stance has kept it at her private residence. This is not Vella's first run-in with impropriety. In 2021, she had been removed from the Gozo courts and transferred to the courthouse in Malta by the Chief Justice, ostensibly because of an inquiry she led into an accident that dragged on for three years lead- ing to several charges being time-barred. The magistrate has a reputation of inertia among colleagues in the legal profession and the unwitting victims of this are the people who have to appear in front of her. The last time this leader wrote about the actions of the judiciary was a few weeks ago when press pho- tographers and videographers were barred from cov- ering the Chief Justice's speech at the opening of the Judicial Year. The Chief Justice had subsequently apologised – a very rare but welcome apology from someone in the judiciary – calling the incident a misunderstanding. But this leader had remarked on the ease by which the media and journalists could be dismissed because there is little appreciation for the work we do. Once again, we reiterate our stand that the actions of members of the judiciary are not beyond reproach and just as it is our duty towards readers to serve as a watchdog on the powers that be, so is it our duty to call out bad behaviour by members of the judiciary when we see it. We only hope that Magistrate Vella's peers, like Mr Justice Mintoff, will also call out her bad behaviour through meaningful disciplinary action. Quote of the Week "She's looking for it." The deputy registrar of Magistrate Monica Vella while testifying in court on case files that the magistrate took home with her and failed to return in time for appeal proceedings. This prompted appeal proceedings to be drawn out unnecessarily, a situation that prompted Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff to dictate a communique deploring the 'irresponsible actions' of the magistrate. The communication was sent to the Justice Minister, the Chief Justice and the court Registrar. MaltaToday 10 years ago 19 October 2014 Cremona succumbed to exhaustion after divorce referendum ARCHBISHOP Paul Cremona's first indica- tion that he should step down as leader of the Maltese Church came in 2012, when he "suc- cumbed to exhaustion" and had to retire to Gozo for a few weeks shortly after the divorce referendum. Yesterday, Apostolic Nuncio Aldo Cav- alli formally announced that Pope Francis had accepted Mgr Cremona's resignation, putting into effect a succession process for Malta's new archbishop. Cremona, 68, was appointed archbishop in 2007 and has resigned seven years ahead of the normal resignation age for bishops. A successor is now expected to be appointed within three to five months. Admitting that the divorce referendum had been a most trying period for the Church, Cremona sounded frail during a news con- ference where he was flanked by Cavalli and Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna, now the Apostolic Administrator of the Maltese Church. "The archdiocese put much effort in the campaign, but we all know the results," Cre- mona said. Cremona's leadership came under in- tense pressure shortly after the divorce ref- erendum. The costly campaign exposed a Church that could not live up to people's aspirations in a changing world: shortly af- ter, it would prove unable to slow down the unstoppable social changes taking root in Malta, which saw the introduction of pub- licly-funded IVF services, the introduction of civil unions, and gay adoptions. ...