From Mr J. Portelli

I was pleasantly surprised when I read that the government is investigating certain “delays at Gozo court” and has demanded a full list of the cases being handled by Magistrate Antonio Micallef Trigona (TMIS, 14 October). Some of the cases date back five years and the relative sentences or judgments are still pending.

My surprise stems from the fact that this initiative taken by the government is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented, albeit overdue; indeed it must have been something really important which made it pluck up sufficient courage at this point in time to take the bull, which has been having its own way for countless years, by the horns itself rather than leaving the unpleasant work to be done by some commission or somebody else.

A curious aspect about this brave and commendable step taken by the government is why, now that it is finally doing something about delays at the Law Courts, it has singled out the Gozo Court for an investigation and spared the Malta courts, which, as everybody knows, are not renowned for their expeditiousness in dealing with cases, and why single out Magistrate Antonio Micallef Trigona as if he is the only magistrate or judge associated with such delays?

Indeed I consider a delay of five trifling, a venial sin compared to the much longer delays that are the norm in the Malta courts.

One case, for example, involving the Housing Authority (ref.366/89/1), I came across while browsing the gov.mt website (court services) was started in 1989. It came up regularly for hearing but was always deferred for some reason or other. The next sitting will be number 69. There is no indication why it is being deferred. Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia is dealing with the case.

Why this judge has tolerated such an inordinate delay in this case is a mystery, more so because from the scant details I could glean, the case looks quite straightforward and should not have taken too much of the court’s time, certainly not 19 years. The delay must have cost the Housing Authority and the other party a fortune in terms of time and money; this applies also to the court. One tends to come to the silly conclusion that all the parties are happy with this situation, except perhaps the poor interested party, if there is one, who may have been awaiting the outcome all these years. This may or may not be the case. One shudders to think that there may be many more cases like this one.

One also wonders what criteria the government used to decide that the delays at the Gozo Courts were more meritorious of an investigation than those at Malta. Why are the Malta courts being spared? One other question that comes to mind is: what precisely has brought matters to a head?

Joseph Portelli

STA VENERA