I have been alerted by a friend who, upon reading my letters to the press regarding the judiciary, alerted me to an unintended way in which they could be (mis)understood.
In my contributions to the press, I am asking the powers that be to explain why Magistrate Anthony Vella did not convict the man accused of stealing Mr Justice Giovanni Bonello’s paintings, when the accused’s fingerprints were brought up as evidence. I put this question in the light of a case decided by Magistrate Doreen Clarke, carried by The Times two days later, in which Magistrate Clarke convicted a man accused of damaging a car on the basis of shoe prints. I only asked the obvious: why does a Magistrate consider a shoe print to be enough to convict a man, and another Magistrate does not consider a fingerprint to be enough to convict a man? I also remarked that had the Giovanni Bonello paintings case been decided by Magistrate Clarke, she would have probably convicted the accused.
It is this very last remark which my friend opened my eyes to. He told me that my remark could be (mis)understood, because Magistrate Doreen Clarke used to work at the same law firm as Judge Bonello. I immediately realised that this possible misunderstanding could be very damaging to Magistrate Clarke’s reputation. I would therefore like to underline that I would have said the same thing had it been any other Magistrate to deliver such a judgement. I apologise to Magistrate Clarke for the unintended understatement.
My point was that a democracy is built on accountability and transparency. Politicians, who make up the first two organs of the State (the Executive and the Legislative), feel accountable to the people. The recent case involving Minister Jesmond Mugliett proves the point. The Minister, though considering himself not to have done anything exceptionable, still deemed it prudent to offer his resignation. Using the same logic, why shouldn’t the third organ of the State, the Judiciary, be held responsible for its conduct?
The public at large – no matter what Andrew Borg Cardona’s opinion might be – has to understand Magistrate Vella’s decision, whether it was acceptable in the legal milieu, and in case it is not acceptable, who is he accountable to. The matter is made even more complex by the fact that Magistrates are not democratically appointed. It follows that one has to ask, again and again, how Magistrates are appointed. In a country in which there is a dearth of legal publications, how can the legal knowledge of a lawyer be assessed, taking into account the non-existence of public examinations for such posts? Let us take Magistrate Vella for instance. Apart from the fact that he used to conduct a choir, what else do we know about Dr Vella? What are his outstanding legal qualifications that make him fit to sit in judgement on his fellow citizens? How and why was he appointed Magistrate?
Dr Borg Cardona, the President of the Chamber of Advocates, declared that the profession is satisfied with the way the judiciary functions. On July 6, The Times reported a decision in which a pig breeder was awarded Lm2,000 as compensation for the damages caused by the delay in the administration of justice. His case had been going on for more than 13 years. Is this satisfactory? Why should the State fork out taxpayers’ money to pay for the unsatisfactory performance of Magistrates?
Once again, I ask: how are Magistrates chosen? Why isn’t the procedure open to public scrutiny? To whom are they accountable?

Raymond Galea
Zebbug