Advocates hope new service will provide speedier judgements

The Chamber of Advocates has expressed concern over hundreds of court cases that are still pending before a small number of judges and magistrates, and are still awaiting judgement for a number of years. Up until 2011 there were 970 pending cases, some of which have been pending since 2004.

“Members of the public have the legal right to request the Chief Justice to assign their case to a new judge or magistrate if judgement to their case has been pending for 18 months or more,” Chamber President Reuben Balzan said, citing Article 195 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

Balzan announced that the Chamber is now offering its assistance to members of the general public who would like to avail themselves of this right by filing such a request - a recusal - on their behalf. “The recusal can be filed by a party to the cause and not necessarily by his or her lawyer,” he said.

“It is however important to note that it is at the discretion of the Chief Justice to decide whether the recusal will be upheld and to whom the case will be assigned.”

Upon receiving the request, the Chief Justice shall decide the request behind closed doors and his decision final and conclusive. “Nothing can be done if the Chief Justice decides that the case will not be assigned to a different member of the Judiciary.”

Balzan added that if a different judge or magistrate is appointed, it would not necessarily mean that the sentence will be delivered within a week or month: “The new member of the Judiciary will of course need to study the case and might request that the case is appointed for a hearing prior to giving judgement.”

The Chief Justice will be bound to draw up a yearly report of the cases transferred and shall send the report to the Commission for the Administration for Justice.

“The Commission shall then take any action which it may deem appropriate,” Balzan said. He however said that all the Commission could do is to draw the attention of the member of the Judiciary."

Asked whether the Chamber was seeking other measures to bring in line those members of the judiciary which were underperforming, Balzan said there have been fora where members of the judiciary and legal professionals have discussed potential measures. “However we are against a name-and-shame measure and we believe that other measures which could be taken must not hinder the autonomy and independence of a judge or magistrate.”

Balzan also said that there are members of the judiciary who have 370 and 240 pending cases respectively. Asked whether there have been judges or magistrates that were confronted by the Commission over their delayed judgements, Balzan would not comment.

Balzan had already raised the issue during the opening ceremony of the Forensic Year. However, Chief Justice Silvio Meli had warned Balzan that changing the judge or magistrate presiding a case could backfire – not only because the member of the judiciary would feel offended, but could also cause a disruption in the flow of cases.

“But we feel that waiting for six and seven years for a judgement to be delivered is serious and grievous,” Balzan said today.

The Chamber will however not offer the assistance to those cases where judgements have been pending for three years or more.

Chamber’s comments on Franco Debono’s motion

Referring to the 22-point motion presented by Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono seeking reform in the justice sector and the police force, Balzan described it as “positive”.

“Dr Debono has raised important points and all 22 points merit discussion. The Chamber itself has already discussed and is addressing a number of the issues raised,” he said.

“But before the debate takes place in parliament, key players and stakeholders should be consulted. It is important that members of the judiciary and legal professionals are involved in the discussions prior to the debate.”

Referring to how judges and magistrates are directly appointed by the Justice Minister, Balzan said simply changing the screening method or members of the Judiciary are appointed will not be enough to change the fact that a small number are underperforming.