Judge slams magistrate for taking case files home and failing to return them

Appeals court judge deplores magistrate’s unexplained failure to return case files which she had taken home, stressing that it had translated into unnecessary and lengthy delays for the parties

Magistrate Monica Vella (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)
Magistrate Monica Vella (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)

An appeals court judge has deplored a magistrate’s unexplained failure to return case files which she had taken home, stressing that it had translated into unnecessary and lengthy delays for the parties.

This emerges from a communique that was sent to the Justice Minister, the Chief Justice and the Registrar of Courts earlier this month, by Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff.

On 9 October, the judge, who was hearing appeals against decisions by the Rent Regulation Board that were handed down by magistrate Monica Vella, had dictated a note, observing that it was the third consecutive sitting which had to be postponed because the case file had not been exhibited in his court.

He referred to the testimony of Magistrate Vella’s deputy registrar, who had been summoned to the witness stand in July to explain why the case file had not been handed over to the Court of Appeal.

“He made it clear that the case file in question was currently in Magistrate Monica Vella’s private residence,” noted the judge.

In his testimony, the deputy registrar confirmed that the magistrate had been informed that the case file was needed in the appeal proceedings.  He explained that the magistrate had taken the file home with her. “What did she reply?” the judge had asked. “She’s looking for it,” the witness had replied, confirming that the file was not in her chambers, nor had it been handed to the police.

Mr. Justice Mintoff then dictated a communique, which he ordered be sent to the Minister, Chief Justice and Registrar.

“The Court deplores the irresponsible actions of the magistrate in question, who failed to explain why the case file had still not been passed on to this court, and which had led to these proceedings being drawn out unnecessarily, causing great inconvenience to the parties,” it reads.