The debate on the amendments to the Criminal Code was quite expectedly dominated by the legal eagles in the House of Representatives. Ordinary lawyers do have this intrinsic characteristic to seek disagreement on issues that categorise them into different schools of thought.

Lawyers who are also politicians will then make a deadly cocktail, which explains to some extent why justice and home affairs bills are hopelessly destined to heated controversies. But no matter how harsh and at times aggressive – if not outright insolent – the tone of the debate can be, ultimately this attitude is born out of good intentions. The recent debate on the amendments on bail, inquests and evidence by accomplices was no exception.

Reforming the justice system is sensitive and delicate, especially when proposed changes seem to challenge established procedures and long-standing principles. Lawyers, including the incumbent Home Affairs Minister, have been brought up to venerate principles emanating from the separation of the three powers, the most important being the independence of the judiciary, which is the guarantee of the protection of our fundamental human rights.

Legislative attempts at challenging the status quo have raised hell in some European parliaments. For instance, in the UK Tony Blair had to eat humble pie and settle for a less controversial bill dealing with the detention of terrorist suspects when his own backbenchers rebelled against his proposals. With Mediterranean blood flowing through our veins, any attempt perceived to shift the balance of power is destined to meet with stiff opposition.

I suspect that the Justice and Home Affairs Minister is not too happy with the quality of judgements being delivered by the inferior courts in criminal proceedings. Two particular amendments – the one on bail and the other on inquests – constitute in essence an overt snub to the inferior courts, because they aim at shifting the power to make interim decisions on bail from the magistrates’ courts to the criminal court (which is presided over by a judge), while inquests cannot be initiated by magistrates before the Chief Justice approves.

It is true that, by these amendments, decisions are being left up to the judiciary to make, but it is also clear that the Executive is trying to influence the ball game by shifting the goalposts.

Now this may not be good news to defence lawyers, which is, however, beside the point. Parliament does not pass laws to appease or displease either the prosecution or the defence, although that might well be the net effect. The ultimate goal in reforming the justice system is to ensure that in making changes to substantive law or procedure the person suspected of committing a crime will continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The preservation of that principle is paramount. Unfortunately, when drawing up bills on justice and home affairs the Executive runs the risk of appearing to meddle with issues that belong exclusively to the judiciary, which is independent. In order to avoid this perception, the Executive must legislate in a way that it will empower the judiciary to make changes within itself or at least appear to involve the judiciary in the legislative process.

The Home Affairs Minister remarked in Parliament that the amendment on bail was proposed by the Police – which is an administrative branch of the government. But what about the judiciary? Was it involved?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the need to set up a Justice and Home Affairs Committee in Parliament. Today I am making the case for the setting up of a Guidelines Council with a sentencing advisory panel.

If it is true that judgements are not being delivered with consistency, adding to the general mistrust of the public in the institution of justice, the minister should avoid making direct legislative challenges in trying to address the problem. My proposal would be beneficial in the sense that it would leave it up entirely to the judiciary to discipline itself in matters where it is felt that changes are necessary. For instance, it is true that a stronger deterrent against ordinary and aggravated theft is in place and that it should be reflected in the quality of judgements by our courts, owing to the steep rise in this type of crime over recent years.

The Sentencing Guide-lines Council’s role would be to issue sentencing guidelines to assist our courts to help encourage consistent sentencing. It would be set up by law as an independent body, perhaps even within the Commission for the Administration of Justice, with the Chief Justice as the chairman and with members – appointed by the minister after consultation with the Chief Justice – that will include judicial members and non-judicial ones as well, with experience in policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence and the interests of victims.

I think that this is the best way forward. The controversial amendments will now pass to the Committee stage where I hope they will be scrapped or metamorphosed into something entirely different. The next challenge for the minister is to avoid getting embroiled in useless controversies and to move on to create the right structures that our justice system urgently requires.

Dr Gulia is Opposition main spokesman on Home Affairs