Advertisement
The Maltese Herald
APS : 0.57 AXR : 0.41 BMIT : 0.35 BOV : 1.74 CVS : 1.00 FIM : 0.16 GHM : 0.87 GO : 2.70 HLI : 0.23 HRV : 0.97 HSB : 1.36 IHI : 0.45 LOM : 0.80 LQS : 0.19 LSI : 0.49 LSR : 1.00 MDI : 0.25 MDS : 0.45 MIA : 5.95 MLT : 0.55 MMS : 1.32 MPC : 0.35 MSC : 0.33 MTP : 0.47 MZ : 0.58 PG : 1.89 PZC : 0.63 RS2 : 0.52 RS2P : 0.60 SFC : 6.70 STS : 1.25 TML : 1.00 TRI : 1.12 VBL : 0.20
Culture News Sports
The Maltese Herald

Lawyers want an independent committee to address their complaints about the Judiciary

—

by

Mark Camilleri
in

Yesterday, during the inaugural session of the Forensic Year, the President of the Chamber of Lawyers, Peter Fenech made a critical remark towards what he described as a small minority of the judiciary who conduct themselves irregularly. Peter Fenech is demanding an independent body that addresses lawyers’ complaints about the judiciary. This comment came days after the Minister of Justice, Jonathan Attard announced there will be a new bill regulating the judiciary.

The Judiciary is already bound by its Code of Ethics and some members of the judiciary like Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera and Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, did indeed break the Code of Ethics without consequence. However, lawyers may have different, self-serving interests in wanting the judiciary to be overseen by an “independent body.”

You can read Peter Fenech’s full speech here.

 

Comments

  1. Banquo avatar
    Banquo

    Those who just want to read the part about a request to establish an independent committee for the judiciary should go to page 7 of Peter Fenech’s speech.

    Although you seem to cast doubt on the intentions of this request, personally, I find nothing wrong with it. There needs to be a middle way between a judge or magistrate staying in the job while doing whatever they please and getting dismissed for wrongdoing by parliament.

    An independent body which hears complaints and makes recommendations or admonishes the judiciary would be ideal. Of course, there needs to be safeguards to ensure that frivolous complaints do not tarnish the reputations of judges or magistrates, or disrupt them from their work (especially those dealing with cases that are politically or socially sensitive; and are thus more prone to politically motivated complaints).

    A couple of ideas are that complaints deemed to be intimidatory be rejected outright, and for investigations about any complaint to be held privately at first. Without solid evidence, no complaint should be entertained.

    Overall, though, Peter Fenech’s recommendation sounds measured and not over the top. As you have pointed out, members of the judiciary like Consuelo Scerri Herrera and Donatella Frendo Dimech have free rein to break the rules without consequences. Whatever disciplinary procedures the judiciary currently has are clearly not working.

    Another interesting point Peter Fenech mentioned is the need for more transparency about lawyers’ fees (pages 8-10). This would certainly be welcome, although his implication that fees need to be higher because lawyers are not making enough money is questionable. People who need a lawyer are generally vulnerable. They are willing to pay anything for their lawyer to get them out of a fix, and they do not always have the luxury of shopping around. Transparent fees and agreements of engagement would mitigate the shock clients get from their lawyers when looking at mounting bills.

    Reply
  2. Glormu Cassar avatar
    Glormu Cassar

    Kemm paroli u diskors fil-vojt …. hawn min jahseb li s-sustanza tohrog minn dijareja verbali …. klikka pompuza ta’ erba’ avukati minfuhin bihom infushom li jahsbu li huma xi allat godda ….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *