Justice Minister miffed but does not use power to request probe into ‘irresponsible’ magistrate

Jonathan Attard has asked the Chief Justice to “look into” the behaviour of a magistrate reprimanded by a judge for taking case files home and not returning them. 

The Justice Minister formally wrote to Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti on Friday with reference to a communique penned by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff. 

However, it remains unclear whether the magistrate will be subjected to disciplinary proceedings at the hands of the Commission for the Administration of Justice. 

READ ALSO: Will the magistrate’s peers step up to the plate?

It is only the justice minister and the chief justice, who are empowered at law to file a complaint with the CAJ, requesting disciplinary action in relation to the behaviour of a judge or magistrate. 

Attard’s decision to write to the Chief Justice rather than the CAJ directly, as the Constitution empowers him to do, will not have triggered an investigation. 

MaltaToday is not privy of any formal request for investigation the Chief Justice may have made to the CAJ. 

The issue stems from an incident earlier this month when an appeals case presided over by Mintoff had to be put off three times since the case file was not made available. 

It later transpired from the testimony of a court official that the file was still in the possession of Magistrate Monica Vella, who had decided the case at first instance. According to the testimony of the magistrate’s deputy registrar, Vella had taken the case file home and had not yet returned it. 

In a communique delivered to the Chief Justice, the Justice Minister and the Court registrar, Mintoff reprimanded the magistrate’s behaviour, which caused undue delay in court proceedings.

Minister: ‘Behaviour should be looked into immediately’ 

Asked by MaltaToday whether he intended to report the magistrate’s behaviour to the CAJ, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard said he wrote to the Chief Justice about the matter. 

“I officially wrote to the Chief Justice about communiques brought to my attention, and a report related to sittings given a date in 2026,” Attard said. 

The reference to the 2026 sittings is to an incident flagged by a lawyer on Facebook whereby his client had filed a report on threats and the court assigned the case to a date in 2026. This is a distinct issue from the incident involving Magistrate Monica Vella and the case file kept at home. 

“In my letter, I reiterated that the relevant behaviour should be immediately looked into in a just manner, in the best interest of the judicial system’s integrity and the trust that should underpin it and any appropriate action taken,” the minister said. 

Attard added that he also offered every assistance needed for the probe to take place and asked to be informed of any updates. 
“It is government’s intention to put forward constitutional amendments intended to strengthen ethical processes and standards in the judicial service. These amendments reflect appeals made by the Chief Justice and a set of principles agreed with Judiciary Association.

Disciplinary procedures 

According to the Constitution when the CAJ receives a report of wrongdoing concerning a member of the judiciary from the chief justice or the justice minister, it will set up a committee of judges and magistrates that will investigate the claim. 

Proceedings are held behind closed doors and if the wrongdoing or breach of ethics is of a minor nature, the committee may issue a warning or impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding 10% of the annual salary. 

If the offence is deemed to be serious, the judge or magistrate may be suspended for a period of not more than six months on half pay. 

If the offence is serious enough to merit removal, the findings are then passed onto the CAJ, which will decide the matter. Any decision to remove a judge or magistrate can be contested in the Appeals Court. 

Under the constitutional amendments of 2020, MPs can no longer initiate the procedure to discipline or have a judge removed as it was before.