The turnaround in justice is here – we’re getting there

“My sincere condolences,” the smart, timeless gentleman who stood in front of me told me.

I was standing with Mr Justice Emeritus Giovanni Bonello in my temporary make-shift “office” in Castille, a few hours after I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Justice two years ago.  

“Condolences?” I inquisitively asked the learned lawyer. 

“Yes,” he answered after some seconds of silence.  “That’s what I tell each and every Justice Minister once he is appointed.  My most sincere condolences.”

From underneath the well-trimmed moustache, a smile danced generously on his face.  

True, the role of a Justice Minister is not exactly an ordinary cup of tea. He is answerable for the results achieved or not achieved in his portfolio, like any other minister of course.  But then, the crucial concept of the independence of the judiciary puts a decisive limit on how much the minister can give direction in order to achieve the goals that the government would have set.

This plain, important fact turns the Justice Minister into someone who has no option but to master the art of consensus-building, of reaching agreement through persuasion, patience and respect. True, this fact is completely irrelevant to that woman who has been complaining that her case had been put off for the umpteenth time, or to that man whose criminal inquiry seems to never reach the finishing line.

But in as much as this fact is irrelevant to the people at large, it is crucial for all those who believe in democracy and, more than that, in the principle of checks and balances.

Looking back, however, hand on heart I can solemnly state that together we have achieved important goals for a better administration of justice. Have we solved once and for all the problem of excessive length of proceedings?  No, of course not. Have we registered a turn-around?  Yes, decisively so.

Indeed last month the European Commission formally commended the government for the progress achieved in the field of justice and has put justice off the equivalent of the “Excessive Deficit Procedure” in this sector.

Let us take a look at some numbers.

European best-practice shows that there are three main tests to be used in order to measure the efficiency of the courts: disposition time, clearance rate and pending cases. Therefore any proper analysis must be checked against those three parameters which are used throughout in the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Any person who has some knowledge on statistics would tell you that the third test – pending cases – is the end result of the first two tests and that in order to achieve an improvement in pending cases, one must first achieve improvement in the disposition time and clearance rate.

There has been a turnaround across the board in almost all the courts in disposition time and clearance rates.  In some courts we have taken further corrective measures – notably the addition of another Judge (Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti) in the Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) – while in others we are already reaping the benefits of a marked decrease in pending cases, with the Small Claims Tribunal being the best example.

But let us take things step by step.

Let us focus on the first test: disposition time, meaning the time it takes a case from start to finish. Improvements have been registered in the Courts of Appeal, Civil Jurisdiction, the Superior Court of Appeal, Criminal Jurisdiction, in the Small Claims Tribunal and in the Administrative Review Tribunal. In fact, in the latter two tribunals between 2013 and 2014, there was a reduction of approximately 40% in the estimated length of proceedings.

Let us turn now to the second test: Clearance Rate, meaning the percentage of resolved cases by a specific court in relation to the percentage of incoming cases into the same court. This measure indicates the efficiency of the courts when processing specific cases. 

The most drastic increase in the CR occurred in the Small Claims Tribunal, from a 40% rate in 2013 increasing to 149% in 2014. Additionally, in the Courts of Appeal, Civil Jurisdiction, while the Clearance Rate still has room for improvement, the 2014 data indicate the best rates in the past four years. 

The overall improvements in the length of proceedings and the CR, are then reflected in the decrease in the number of pending cases. 

Overall these past two years, we have seen a decrease in the total number of pending cases, particularly resulting from improvements in the 1st Instance civil courts, and in the Superior Courts of Appeal, Criminal Jurisdiction, and Courts of Magistrates, Criminal Jurisdiction. Initial data for 2015 indicate that this improvement is being sustained.

So yes, we are getting there. We achieved this turnaround using practically the same resources and building on the excellent relationship of trust which exists between the Executive and the Judiciary. Of course, in the past 24 months we have simplified an innumerable number of laws and introduced an endless list of IT tools aimed at increasing efficiency.  

At the same time we have invested in the long-term sustainability of resources by opening a multi-storey judiciary building, thus creating crucial new physical space in the law courts which were, until now, packed like sardines in a can.

Now that the house has been pretty much put in order, it is high time to pull up a gear with the implementation of the holistic reform in the field of justice. Professor Kevin Aquilina has patiently (and on a pro bono basis) translated into legal amendments the 450 proposals put forward by the Bonello Commission and my ministry is currently discussing them internally with the respective ministries and authorities.

I am confident that we will make it. Our families deserve a more efficient legal system. Our businesses need to have their cases resolved without much delay. Our legal practitioners believe in the need of updating and progress.

Let us pull the same rope. We will make it.

Owen Bonnici is Minister of Justice and Culture