Magistrate's brother hits out at Commission's 'interference' in judges' social lives

Labour MP and shadow justice minister Josè Herrera lashed out at the Commission for the Administration of Justice for “interfering in the private and social lives of judges and magistrates" and defended their right to throw parties, saying the judiciary had a tradition of entertaining people

Herrera is the brother of magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera, who reported Malta Independent columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia for criminal defamation in several blogposts concerning the magistrate’s personal life and parties she hosted, throwing a spotlight on the public behaviour of the judiciary.

Herrera, who is the son of the late judge Joseph Herrera, was speaking on Super One radio’s midday programme It-Tokk yesterday, where he even criticised the Chief Justice and the president of the Chamber of Advocates.

“Rather than wasting its time in victimising certain magistrates or judges by looking into their personal and social lives, the Commission for the Administration of Justice should look into the real problems that are hindering the normal administration of justice,” Herrera said about the constitutional body – which is chaired by the President of Malta – and oversees the work of the judiciary.

Herrera let rip during the programme, saying he had never been as harsh in public in his statements on the commission.

“I insist that whoever criticises the social lives of magistrates and judges has no background on lawyers: it is a known fact that judges used to seek homes with big halls to host dinner parties at least once a month,” Herrera said.

The Labour MP also recalled how the former pre-war Chief Justice Sir Arturo Mercieca had purchased a huge house close to the British Governor’s home, apparently in a bid to compete on the social circuit by hosting regular, lavish parties.

“My father had also bought a big house in St. Vincent Street in Sliema, and used to host regular dinner parties,” he added. “But why should the Commission ever have to delve into the social lives of the members of judiciary?” Herrera asked.

“Should judges be locked up in a convent when appointed to the bench?” he added. “Some stare at a wall and watch TV in the evening, others prefer to socialise.”

Herrera even said socialisation helped judges reflect on present-day realities when passing judgement.

He criticised Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and his predecessor Vincent de Gaetano, for “assuming a political role” in their roles as head of the judiciary.

“A Chief Justice’s role is simply to preside over the Appeals Court, and never to be the general manager at the courts at the same time: where he executes the political responsibility of the justice minister, who seems to have washed his hands of any responsibility over the courts.”

Herrera proposed a parliamentary committee, chaired by the Opposition and with two members from each side, to oversee the work of the judiciary.

Herrera said he favoured the appointment of a president of the Constitutional Court – currently presided by the Chief Justice – that would be totally independent from all other courts, so as to avoid any possible conflict between judgements from the inferior courts.

The Labour MP also criticised the president of the Chamber of Advocates Andrew Borg Cardona: “To me he is not good for the post, he uses two weights and two measures. I know of two young lawyers who were fined by the Chamber for accepting to an interview by the media. They were fined because of this ridiculous rule that lawyers cannot advertise their services, when a simple Google search reveals a long list of financial services lawyers and their firms, which is tantamount to advertising.”

Josè Herrera writes (8^th October):

I state that when I criticised the Chamber of Advocates on double standards I limited this solely to one aspect. This referred to the Code of Ethics which prohibits members of the legal profession from advertising. I remarked that in this day and age, there are many law firms who do this continuously on the internet, and these are never reprimanded. On the other hand, occasionally, other lawyers who seek to publicise themselves indirectly on the media, have been known to be censored. This to me is unacceptable. I never stated that two lawyers were fined by the president of the Chamber of Advocates.

Referring to my comments on the president of the Chamber of Advocates what I stated was that to my mind he has good attributes and also bad ones; like everyone else after all.

With regards to the Commission, I did not criticise this specifically for interfacing in the social life of the members of the judiciary. I criticised it generally, for dedicating much time in investigating members of the judiciary on issues of secondary importance (like their participation in sport organisation) and seem to fail to treat with the same urgency and importance issues directly connected with the administration of justice. In this respect I refer to issues concerning serious unwarranted delays and the failure of certain members of the judiciary to perform according to the dictates of their office.