PM gives no clear answer in standards probe over conversation with magistrate

Prime Minister Robert Abela failed to provide the Commissioner for Standards with “clear answers” about the context of a conversation with a magistrate about sentencing policies. 

The standards probe was launched into whether the prime minister had breached the code of ethics by having the conversation, on complaints by independent candidate Arnold Cassola and law student organisation GħSL. 

Abela himself had mentioned during a political activity in January 2023 that he had met a magistrate who expressed frustration about how tough punishments get watered down on appeal. 

But Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi  said he was unable to conclude if the prime minister had breached the code of ethics in this case, having filed to give a clear answer as to how the conversation had panned out.

In his letter to Judge Azzopardi, Abela said he had a duty to speak out during his speech in the wake of the homicide of Pelin Kaya, the Turkish national mowed down by a car driven by Jeremie Camilleri, who has since admitted to murder.

The prime minister denied speaking to the magistrate about a specific case, claiming that the conversation was about general policies and procedures in court.

The Commissioner said that judges, by being bound by the code of judicial ethics, can only be disciplined by the Commission for the Administration of Justice. “This Office therefore it is not to discuss the conduct of the judge,” Azzopardi said, but only those regulated under the Standards Act.

“Therefore for the purpose of the task of this Office, the enquiry should be whether the Hon. Prime Minister did not violate any part of the Code of Ethics applicable to him.”

Azzopardi posited two opposing considerations: on the one hand, ministers and MPs should not be hindered in the exercise of the right their right to freedom of expression, citing his predecessor that it was not for his Office “to censor statements made by them on matters of public interest in the fulfilment of their role as representatives.”

On the other hand, Azzopardi said a member of the executive should not attempt to influence an independent institution in the performance of its duties. “Whether this can be considered to have happened in the present case depends on the content of the conversation between the Prime Minister and Magistrate.”

Azzopardi said the facts available indicate that no case was mentioned in the conversation. “As such, what has been said cannot be regarded as an attempt to influence the judiciary. It is true that the conversation took place shortly after it took place a specific case that shocked everyone, but there is no link between the conversation and this particular case.”

Azzopardi cited the case of former chief justice Noel Arrigo in which a Constitutional Court felt no need for redress over a prime minister’s comments related to the case. He said in present case, there had been no undue influence on the judiciary.

“This does not mean that informal contacts between members of the executive and members of the the judicial system are desirable. Even if in reality they are innocuous, such communication leaves room for doubts and assumptions as to their purpose, and could eventually undermine public confidence in the independence of the courts.

“Therefore, this Office cannot accept the argument that a member of the executive does nothing wrong in seeking such contact with a judge, even if no specific case is discussed. Any dialogue between the executive and the judiciary should be carried out through official mechanisms.”

Azzopardi added that a conversation between the prime minister and a magistrate at a socialevent could be deemed innocuous, yet if one of the parties made contact specifically to discuss the imposition of criminal penalties, this raised questions of an ethical nature.

“As already mentioned, it is not the task of this Office to enquire about the conduct of the judiciary, and therefore this Office only has an interest in whether it was the Prime Minister made contact with the Magistrate.

“That Office cannot conclude that there was a breach of ethics on the basis of the information available to it, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer about the circumstances of the conversation, nor does it merit a finding that there has been no infringement.”