Minister still to decide on warrants for convicted lawyers

Justice minister Owen Bonnici will be deciding whether to grant a warrant to two lawyers who were discovered to have had a criminal record.

Last week it was reported that two lawyers had been allowed to sit for their warrant exam despite having received a conditional discharge after they admitted to fraudulently using a lost credit card.

According to Article 81 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedures no person shall be entitled to obtain a warrant unless they are of “good conduct and good morals”.

The law does not explicitly define “good conduct” and the Chamber of Advocates and the Association of Judges and Magistrates have given differing views on whether a conditional discharge should disqualify the two lawyers from obtaining a warrant.

“I always try and discuss matters with the different stake holders to find the best possible solution,” Bonnici told MaltaToday. “It seems however that in this case, each stakeholder has a point of view that is rather clear so now it falls on me, as justice minister, to take a decision.”

The minister’s comments came at the end of the ceremony during which he presented newly warranted lawyers with their certificates. A ceremony the two lawyers at the centre of the controversy were meant to attend.

Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri (left) with PN leader Adrian Delia (centre) and Justice Minister Owen Bonnici (right) before the ceremony

Pressed on what he would be basing his decision on, Bonnici said he would be sticking with the rule of law.

“Like everything else I have done in my time as minister, I will follow the law and apply it accordingly,” he said.

Also present for the ceremony was Nationalist Party leader Adrian Delia, who is also the Opposition’s justice spokesperson.

Asked for his take on the issue, Delia said he “totally subscribed” to the statement issued by the Chamber of Advocates.

“I don’t think these are personal issues, and I don’t want to go into issues relating to this person or that, but as a matter of principle I think the chamber is correct,” said Delia.

‘Removal of judgments online preposterous’

In addition to the two lawyers’ approval for a warrant, revelations that one of the two lawyers’ sentence had been removed from the courts website added further controversy.

Bonnici has claimed that the case was removed after a request was made, and which resulted in the court applying the right to be forgotten principle, an explanation rejected by the PN leader.

“I think it is preposterous that they were removed in that way,” he said. “It shouldn’t be up to the minister or any court officials. Let’s not forget that these sentences are handed down by magistrates or judges.”

Delia insisted that it should under no circumstances be the prerogative of a government, ministry or public official to decide to which cases the right to be forgotten can be applied.

“I think that here we have case where we are ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power or authority). These powers are not there and I think we are creating a very dangerous precedent.”

Data protection Act applies

Bonnici however said that under the data protection act, a person whose data is being used by a third party is a data subject while the person using the data is a data controller.

“In this case the court’s administration is processing the data of people who are the subjects of sentences handed down by the courts. So they are the data controllers, and the law allows the data subjects to make certain requests,” he explained

According to Bonnici, in each case, Frank Mercieca - the courts’ director general – had discussed the case with the data commissioner.

“They spoke and decided on a way forward that found a balance between the public’s right to information and an individual’s right to privacy,” he said, stressing that everything was decided on the basis of the Data Protection Act.

He added that the law gave data subjects the right to make requests to the data controller.

Pressed on what the decision would ultimately be based on, Bonnici said that there were “European guidelines” which the court administration was instructed to follow. The guidelines, he said, outlined what issues must be kept in mind when dealing with such cases.

Responsibilities towards the legal profession

Addressing the new lawyers, Chamber of Advocates president George Hyzler emphasised the responsibilities lawyers had towards their clients, the courts and society in general. "You are joining a family with special responsibilities. This is why you need a warrant."

Referring to the two lawyers’ case Hyzler said the Chamber had not objected to them receiving a warrant gratuitously, but rather because it had an obligation to safeguard lawyers’ reputation and the faith society had in the legal profession.

"The reason the state gives a warrant is to certify that the person in question is trustworthy,” he said, adding that past incidents had tarnished the legal profession’s reputation.

He stressed that the legal profession was not a business and that the law was not about making money.

Choosing to obtain a warrant, he said, meant abiding by the rules.

“If you would rather be in business you can choose not to get a warrant or get one at a later stage,” he said. 

Attorney General Peter Grech and Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri also addressed the ceremony.