Magisterial inquiry reform one vote away from becoming law

Magisterial inquiries will not be carried out under the supervision of the Attorney General, according to a change proposed by the government to its own reform.

Justice Minister Jonathan Attard presented the amendment to government’s Bill on Tuesday as MPs concluded a clause-by-clause review of the draft law at committee stage.

Similarly, the AG’s oversight was removed from the amendment related to the appointment of court experts. In the amended version, the appointment of experts will now be the sole remit of the inquiring magistrate and the Chief Justice.

The inclusion of the AG in the original proposal had been criticised because it reduced the magistrate’s autonomy.

The Opposition welcomed both amendments put forward by the minister but voted against at every stage to reflect its opposition to the reform.

The Justice Minister said the government put forward these amendments to remove any impression the original proposal gave that the magistrate could be subjected to the AG’s control.

But while these two amendments and others in a similar vein found the Opposition’s agreement there was profound disagreement on several other aspects.

The reform is expected to go for its last vote in the plenary on Wednesday at Third Reading stage before becoming law. Rule of law NGO Repubblika will be organising a protest outside parliament against the reform it argues is regressive and dilutes the independent scrutiny of public officials.

The reform removes the right of ordinary citizens to directly ask a magistrate for an inquiry. Instead, the individual will have to file a police report and only after six months have lapsed can the person seek recourse at the Criminal Court that will decide if a magisterial inquiry should be held.

Opposition MP Karol Aquilina reiterated the criticism that the level of proof being demanded to determine whether an inquiry should start is higher than the proof required by a magistrate during the compilation of evidence to determine whether an accused person should stand trial.

The minister insisted that the reform will not diminish the police’s ability and right to ask for a magisterial inquiry. Jonathan Attard defended the reform, insisting it was making the process more responsible.

Another bone of contention was the limitation imposed on expert expenses, with Attard introducing the concept of proportionality between the extent of the crime and the expense required to probe it.

Aquilina described this as a worse situation than originally proposed. “So, if a politician stole €20,000 and it will cost the State €40,000 to find the truth, does this mean the expert will not be appointed? Truth has no price,” Aquilina said.

But Attard insisted the issue of proportionality was adopted in various foreign jurisdictions.

Aquilina argued several times that the reform was dismantling magisterial inquiries, in particular those initiated at the behest of private individuals. Attard rebutted, insisting the reform was intended to make the process fairer and more robust.

But Aquilina was having nothing of the government’s arguments: “This law is intended to save Joseph Muscat, Clint Camilleri and James Piscopo.”

Attard refuted the argument, calling the Opposition MP a “populist”.