The Justice Reform Commission has presented a second report to Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici, outlining hundreds of proposals to shake up the justice system, which has long been stagnant and detached from the reality of modern times.

Let us be clear, this is not to say that the country does not, or should not have faith in the system. It serves its primary function – delivering justice. But, on the other hand, it is well known that there are serious shortcomings. It is out of date and creaks under the sheer weight of its beurocratic procedures, with one of the main problems being the sheer length of time it takes to process a court case from beginning to end.

So far, the commission is simply putting forward ideas that it has come up with. It will be up to the government to decide what is to be adopted and put into practice. And while many of the proposals put forward will not be adopted, it is heartening to see the sheer volume of proposals that have been put forward by the commission. Quantity does not always mean quality, and sometimes although an idea may be good in theory, it may not always be practical. But it is clear that a lot of thought has gone into what may be done to improve one of the facets of democracy.

The second report’s proposals cover a wider ground than the first report had done, with the issues addressed including a citizens’ charter, the setting up of an administrative civil court, the Gozo Court, the Family Court, the Commission for the Administration of Justice and the parole system.

The commission believes that the Attorney General should no longer serve as a public prosecutor, as well as the government’s chief legal adviser, and recommends that the former role should be hived off.

The head of the Commission, Judge Giovanni Bonello, said he believed that about 30-odd proposals which would lead to a “radical” overhaul of the legal aid system were of particular importance.

He noted that the legal aid system may have been practical 150 years ago – pointing out that it has changed little since then – but added that it was now time to ensure that those who could not afford a proper legal defence are served well. He is right.

He also said the reform proposals varied in size and scope. Some required simple changes in procedure, while others, such as reforming the Attorney General’s role, required constitutional amendments. The cost of each proposal also varied widely, he said, before adding that the commission hoped that the majority are accepted and implemented.

Of course, the hard part is going to be implementation of the said reforms. The courts themselves, just as they are all over the world, tend to be very resistant to change. But given the current impetus of this government – no one can deny that a lot of hard work is being put in – change will come. And that change is needed, there is no doubt. Dr Bonnici and the Commission are doing a good job.