Reference is made to Dr Emmy Bezzina’s letter Family Court building safety (TMID, 14 April). Some replies are called for in order to avoid unnecessary misconceptions which can cause undue and unwarranted alarm to citizens who attend court sittings in the Family Court building.
It is a known fact that the Family Court has experienced an increase in its workload since it was established in 2003.
It was exactly this anticipated increase in the number of cases related to family issues, as well as the need to have cases related to family matters heard in a nearby but separate building from where the cases of a criminal nature were being heard, that led the government to revamp the courts’ Administrative Annexe in Strait Street into the Family Court and thus hive off family-related cases from the courts’ main building.
This initiative also secured a measure of discreetness where such sensitive cases are concerned.
However what Dr Bezzina failed to mention was that this increase in family-related cases was also acknowledged by the Chief Justice who, about a year-and-a-half ago, assigned two judges to preside over Family Court cases whereas previously only one judge took cognisance of all family-related cases.
The problem of the “...hundreds of people who crowd the stairways...’ could be addressed by the courts in question if they were to adopt the diary system in appointing cases for hearing.
In this way cases would have a specific date and time when they are to be heard and the people involved would not have to be in the Family Court hours before their case is to be heard.
This would obviously require also the full cooperation of lawyers, as it would be futile to set down a case for a specific time unless the parties turn up with their counsel.
This staggering of cases would obviously also depend on the workload of the judge or magistrate concerned.
Throughout these past four years, enhancements were made to both the Family Court Registry and the Archives.
However one must point out to Dr Bezzina that no employee, of his own initiative, can set up a new archive section. He can only put forward his proposal to the courts’ administration who, after due consideration about the proposal’s feasibility and cost effectiveness, approves, or otherwise, such an undertaking.
I am also sure that Dr Bezzina is fully aware that where safety is concerned, the courts’ administration has left no stone unturned.
The premises are supplied with a fire-alarm system, an appropriate number of fire extinguishers and a dry rise system.
Dr Bezzina must surely be aware that the Occupational Health and Safety Authority has noted what measures are in place in both the Family Court and the Main Courts Building and the courts’ administration is actively acting upon the OHSA’s numerous recommendations which encompass other areas of safety as well.
In fact the courts’ administration is now seriously studying different ways of updating the evacuation plan of the buildings in case of such an eventuality as that mentioned by the leader of the Alpha Liberal Democratic Party.
Notwithstanding this, however, the courts’ administration will examine the feasibility of installing water tanks at the Family Court connected to a fire-hose system in order to complement existing fire-fighting equipment.
Furthermore, the courts’ administration has also invested in the training of suitable court officials who undertook training courses in fire-fighting at a recognised fire-fighting school.
Some of these officials work in the Family Court and would know how to prevent disasters as those anticipated by Dr Bezzina.
KEVIN MAHONEY
Director General
Courts of Justice Division
Valletta