The Labour Party’s proposals for sweeping reforms in the justice system are most welcome, the problems plaguing the delivery of justice in this country have been with us for decades now and it is high time that matters are addressed and addressed properly.

But the fact of the matter is that much of what was unveiled yesterday morning in terms of the party’s proposals for addressing the system’s ailments was not quite as novel as the party is making them out to be. 

In fact, the bulk of what was unveiled yesterday at a press conference outside the Valletta law courts has already been done, or is a work in progress.

One novel concepts was that related to sending off an SMS or an email to people whose court cases have been postponed for one reason or another, instead of forcing people to trek into Valletta, many missing at least a morning of work in the process, only to find that their case has been postponed.

Another new concept was the proposal to involve Parliament in the appointment of judges and magistrates, with a view to creating a better system of checks and balances.

Also novel is the proposal to remove the statute of limitations, in other words time barring, when it comes to cases of political corruption – a grand gesture but one that will undoubtedly have repercussions on other crimes that carry statutes of limitations.  How, for example, could it be justified if time barring is still to be applied to cases of sexual abuse or even murder?  The Labour Party’s commitment to implement, at long last, a Whistleblowers Act is also most welcome.

There would clearly be a lot for the commission of independent justice experts, as proposed by the party yesterday, to sift through and address.  But that is not to say that proper recommendations along such lines could not be delivered by the end of the year as was pledged yesterday morning.

But apart from these, one is hard pressed to identify what is new in the proposals.

The need for a new IT system for the scheduling of court cases, which would prevent situations in which lawyers have conflicting cases and simply cannot be in two courtrooms at the same time, for example, is rather old hat.

It was last September that a new IT system was installed, effective at the beginning of October, which has seen all civil cases appointed at specific times and with a certain amount of time allotted to each case, which is agreed upon in advance by the judge and the lawyers involved.

Through the system, lawyers are meant to know that they have, for example, half an hour before a judge at a specific time for that particular case and that they will have no other hearings at the same time.  This is supposed to have led to a situation in which cases should no longer be postponed because lawyers had conflicting hearings and one in which people attending court know exactly when their cases are to be heard.

Now whether this has achieved the desired results or not is another matter altogether, but the fact is that the deed has already been done. 

As for the Commission for the Administration of Justice, and as the Labour party said yesterday, the Commission only has the power to either reprimand or refer members of the judiciary for impeachment, or remove lawyers’ warrants, and nothing in between.  This situation must be rectified, as correctly pointed out yesterday by Labour leader Joseph Muscat.

But, again, the fact of the matter is that the wheels are also rolling on this one as well.  As part of a wide-ranging exercise last summer, which led to the advent of the IT system at the courts, raises for members of the judiciary and a number of other improvements, there is an agreement, in principle for the time being, between the ministry and stakeholders that more powers will be introduced in between these two extremes, and that the way in which the Commission is composed will also be addressed.

The overall agreement also provides for more continued training for judges and magistrates, as well as transferring certain types of petty cases from the Law Courts to local tribunals, mainly the criminal offences that are normally punished with a reprimand or a small fine.

Also on the cards is a complete overhaul in the legal aid system, which provides legal representation to people, who cannot afford their own lawyers.

That said, Labour should be praised for raising the issues but it should also have the decency to give credit where it is due, or at least acknowledge what has been done and say they will do better. 

The current state of affairs in the judiciary is more than a little concerning. With the case of a former chief justice still rankling, and with another judge now facing criminal proceedings, it is quite understandable that people are more than a little worried about whether justice in Malta is truly as blind as it should be.

And as such, it is heartening to see that both of the main political parties have at least agreed on the need to do something about this state of affairs.