Chamber of Advocates slams magisterial inquiry reform

The Chamber of Advocates has strongly criticised the government’s magisterial inquiries reform, expressing concerns over the speed at which the bill has been put forward for parliamentary consideration.

In a press statement, the chamber questioned why a bill published only days ago is being rushed through Parliament without allowing proper study and consultation from all stakeholders.

The legal body warned that the amendments could impact the rights of Maltese and Gozitan citizens and may have serious repercussions on ongoing and future legal proceedings. It also took issue with the apparent shift of power towards law enforcement at the expense of judicial discretion.

Judicial discretion at risk

One of the chamber’s primary concerns is the proposed removal of a citizen’s right to approach an inquiring magistrate directly to report abuse. The chamber insists that it should be the courts, not the police, that determine whether an inquiry should be initiated, arguing that restricting judicial oversight in this manner is unacceptable.

While the chamber acknowledged the importance of ensuring transparency in legal procedures, it maintained that such reforms should not come at the cost of weakening citizens’ rights. “We cannot accept amendments that obstruct a citizen’s right to effectively report abuse,” the statement read.

Double standards in investigations

The chamber further criticised the bill for imposing strict deadlines on inquiries led by magistrates while allowing police investigations to continue indefinitely. “It is not in the interest of justice to impose rigid timeframes on inquiries while police investigations remain free of such constraints,” the statement noted.

Additionally, the chamber questioned why suspects in a magisterial inquiry would be informed of the investigation’s outcome, while police investigations do not follow the same practice.

Evidence and expert testimonies

On the subject of evidence, the chamber took issue with the threshold required to initiate an inquiry. It argued that suspicion alone should be sufficient, with evidence being gathered as the inquiry progresses, rather than requiring complainants to present all necessary proof upfront.

The chamber also defended the use of hearsay evidence in certain circumstances, pointing out that the European Court of Human Rights has recognised its admissibility since 2011. “If such evidence is admissible in a criminal court to convict an individual, then there is no reason it should not be sufficient to open an inquiry if warranted by the circumstances,” it stated.

Further criticism was levelled at proposed restrictions on expert testimonies. The chamber questioned why legal experts should face limitations in expressing their opinions when this is permitted in other areas of Maltese law. It also objected to financial constraints on expert remuneration, arguing that the Chief Justice’s discretion to approve payments above €50,000 should not require consultation with the Attorney General.

Call for proper consultation

The Chamber of Advocates stressed that no one should be above the law and that legal amendments should not be used to curtail fundamental rights. It warned that the proposed changes could undermine the autonomy of magistrates and create unnecessary obstacles to justice.

The chamber urged for the bill to undergo proper scrutiny, allowing for a thorough and balanced discussion rather than rushed legislative approval. “Legal reforms must be implemented with care, ensuring that transparency does not come at the expense of justice,” the chamber concluded.

Malta Employers: Keep the good, scrap the rest

The Malta Employers' Association also issued a statement on Saturday reacting to the inquiries reform, after being invited to an MCESD meeting on the topic.

The association urged the minister to focus on the positive points within the proposed Bill, and to discard proposals that erode citizens’ fundamental rights and weaken good governance. 

"Limiting or prohibiting the access by individuals to an enquiring magistrate, by having them resort to the police as a first point of call is an erosion of their rights.  Inquiries of momentous importance concluded recently would not have been initiated under the proposed regulations," it said.

It pointed out that the system already filters out frivolous cases, and even if a magisterate proceeds with an inquiry, it could result in no case being found. "It is a system that has worked well and struck a good balance between taking action where there is a possible case of infringements such as money laundering or corruption," it said. "The retroactive aspect of the proposed law also raises doubts about its true intentions."

"Government should listen to the former Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri’s warnings on this matter, together with those of many organisations, journalists and social partners, and act in good faith to ensure fairness, good governance, and access to justice in the interest of Maltese society."