The opening of the forensic year brought about two contrasting views about our system of justice. The first one was that expressed by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and the other by Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna. The Chief Justice's message was a message of fear. He is afraid of the power of the media or from what he considers to be undue pressure being made by the press in cases of criminal proceedings.
On its part, the Malta Independent labelled, the members of the judiciary present to hear Mass, said by Bishop Scicluna to celebrate the opening of the judicial year, an elitist corps. The concept that judges are perceived by society as some form of an elite defies the raison d'être of justice. The term justice presupposes social equality before the law irrespective of social standing, money or political affiliation. In reality, no one is so naive as to believe that we are all equal before the law. Justice is influenced by social mores, position, repute and positions of power.
Bishop Charles Scicluna's message was, in part, an answer to the Chief Justice's fear of the media. The judiciary must be the personification of justice, Bishop Charles Scicluna told all the bench members present. Scicluna's discourse was not particularly elaborate. It was simple but to the point; a message of courage, which preached a fundamental philosophical truth. For Scicluna, fear is no excuse. He definitely provoked his distinguished audience, and politely told them to stop delivering droll sentences. It is these droll sentences together with delays in delivering justice that are hitting the media and putting to ridicule our entire judicial system.
The media, therefore, cannot be blamed for the stand it is taking. Some of this negative publicity is also caused by the behaviour of the police, as some of the recent criminal cases have brought to the fore. The Chief Justice should have had the courage to denounce this
Perhaps, the problem today is that our judges are under-estimating the intelligence of the public. The Chief Justice's comments expressed this reality. I am sure that the Chief Justice is not worried about the reporting of the news per se but he is more concerned by the reactions that such a reporting is provoking. Today, newspapers are online and viewers are free to blog and leave their frank comments below the news items. I am sure that these comments, more than the news content itself, is the cause of this fear. For this reason, I found the Chief Justice's appeal pedantic to say the least.
The Chief Justice has yet to understand the Cultural Revolution brought about by the social media. Citizens before the Bench are no longer those ignorant individuals that this system was meant to serve when it was created back in the Middle Ages. Today, the lawyers are not the sole individuals in possession of knowledge and common sense. Many of those landing before the courts are highly educated persons whose acumen is being sorely put to the test by a bench passing down inadequate judgment thus denying justice and committing a serious disserve to society. An even worse affront is occurring when prosecuting officers, in the search of front-page coverage, hit out at the wrong person. Each time this happens not only is this affecting the dignity and human rights of the aggrieved party who has been scarred for life but the harm done is irreversible.
Newspapers are no longer a standalone institution through which one can control news. On the contrary, it is now social media that is influencing newspapers in a remarkable way. The digital age is helping those persons, unjustly affected by our courts or by the police, to unite. Social media is helping them realize that they are not alone in their plight. No censorship, even the most covert, can deter them from becoming keyboard warriors and vent their frustration against the system. A case in point is the public's reaction to the arraignment of Mr. Callus. The media and the police thought that they could demonize the Society of Christian Doctrine via Mr. Callus . Yet thanks to the social media that their action had a boomerang effect on the Law Courts, the press and the police.
There is no doubt that our judges and magistrates are uncomfortable with the power of the social media. And this is a good thing. I hope that judges cease covering up corrupt institutions (as has happened in the past) through inappropriate sentences and decisions. As Auxiliary Bishop Scicluna rightly told them if their sentences do not radiate justice, then individuals are right to vent their frustration and anger via the Internet.
Judges are human beings but so are the individuals appearing in Court. Today there is no more space for puerile excuses to justify inarticulate sentences or decisions.
This Judiciary has slowly lost its reputation. This explains why citizens no longer have inhibitions to express their anger for an injustice; real or perceived. The fact remains that those bloggers who are leaving comments on our justice system do so coldly. Very few write with a loving heart. No one in authority can expect a word of thanks from an injured party.
What needs to be done is to start reinvesting in values starting with our Judges and magistrates. This will help acquiesce to the public's cry and appeal for an equitable and honourable behaviour in the immediate future.
This year's forensic address has clearly shown that the Chief Justice needs to learn a new language - he needs to learn how to be articulate in this fast-changing digital world.