In a career at the law courts now spanning over 23 years, I have seen a good number of my colleagues assuming the office of magistrate or judge.
Invariably I’d miss the colleague, and our relationship would change. The office requires a lot of respect not only from the public but also from lawyers who are expected to show loyalty to the presiding judge or magistrate and at the same time expecting the same respect from the Court.
Judges and magistrates labouring at the law courts are of two schools of thought. There are those who, upon the assumption of their office, prefer to lead a quite and reserved life; and others who think it best to participate in one way or the other in social life. In social functions you always meet the same members of the judiciary. In my opinion, each and every one has the right to choose his/her private and social life, provided they exercise it in a way that is consonant with the respect one expects of their office. The job of a magistrate or judge is an important one, but the person assuming the office should not be barred from social life simply because one expects impartiality and fair treatment.
These two pillars of justice are not compromised because a judge or magistrate wants to remain an active part of society. It was very unfortunate that a lot of effort has recently been lost in discussing the role of two members of the judiciary who, for a long number of years, led two sport organisations: one the MOC, and the other the Malta Basketball Association. I will not enter into the merits of the motive behind the decision, because I do not want to speculate. But I have read the argument behind it. If I understood correctly, the objection to the involvement of the judiciary in sports associations rests on the assumption that justice could be compromised due to conflict of interest. The two members of the judiciary have been serving in their respective organisations for a good number of years and as far as I know there has never been a case of any irregularity on their part. The historical argument is much sounder than the speculative one. I do not see any wrongdoing in contributing one’s experience and zeal in sport and other voluntary organisations for the benefit of society. We need more correct individuals participating in more voluntary organisations. It is not very easy this time and age to find individuals ready to dedicate their free time to a purely voluntary activity. Home loans have made it more difficult on individuals to spare their time in unpaid voluntary work.
The question of sponsorship is gratuitous. When commercial companies sponsor organisations they do so because they want to help that organisations but they also consider the commercial aspect of their sponsorship; the publicity they get and the image they build. So it is a win-win situation and the sport organisation is in no way indebted to the sponsor. Sponsorships are tied to a number of conditions which secure the commercial aspects of the venture. Apart from that, a sizeable company does not deal through its chairman directly with the chairman of the sport organisation. Normally the sponsorship deal is negotiated by the respective officials. The chairman of the company and the president of the organisation only sign the agreement for press coverage purposes. If for the last 10 years or even more, these two members of the judiciary have not met these situations of real conflict of interest and have acted in their respective capacities correctly and according to law, why should they be forced to resign and retire to a secluded life they have not chosen?
Unfortunately, this unnecessary episode has detracted our attention from more serious problems faced by the judiciary in their daily workings. The primary question is the salaries that our judiciary are paid. Compared to other jobs in the country, their salaries are ludicrous. After deducting the NI contribution and income tax, a judge or magistrate ends up with a salary well below that of a senior bank manager. I am not speculating, I know the facts. Recently, the government saw it fit to increase the salary of its doctors; a commendable and overdue decision. But what about increasing the salaries of our teachers, lawyers in government employment, and the salary of the members of the judiciary?
The job of a magistrate or judge is not an easy task. Very often they are faced with contradictory but equally true (or untrue) versions and have to “play God” to reach the correct decision. When people go to Court they have a stressful relationship; the Court has to resolve the issue on what it thinks is just. It is relative justice but it is the best we can get as humans.
The law courts are not one of the best places to spend your life. The infrastructure is far from friendly and I do not blame people who are reluctant to go to court. Many consider law courts as a necessary evil. Yes, evil but necessary. Being necessary, the state should devote more funds and energy to make them work more efficiently. Some of the judges and magistrates are housed in rooms which are not fit for the court’s messenger let alone a judge or magistrate. Others have to cross the road going from one building of the Court to the other whether it is fine or foul weather. On other occasions, judges and magistrates do not have the required staff. Office equipment is far from satisfactory.
There are so many areas that have to be improved to reach a high level of efficiency in our law courts, that the question of whether a judge or magistrate should participate in sport organisations or not is highly superfluous and unnecessary.