The Nationalist Party has filed a motion to repeal a Legal Notice published later last year on the removal of court judgements from the online court database.

The motion was put forward by MPs Karol Aquilina and Therese Comodini Cachia.

Since 2014, around 300 court judgements have been removed from the Ecourts online database following requests made to the Director General or Executive Head of the court proceedings agency.

Speaking in Parliament, Aquilina stated that “secret justice is injustice.” He went on to explain that this has been going on for a number of years and former Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had originally given the go ahead for this to happen.

“Bonnici had claimed that under GDPR regulations, people have the right to be forgotten.”

It was only late last year that the process was given a semi-formal shape in the form of a legal notice issued by now Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis. Back then Zammit Lewis claimed that “this was the implementation of the right to be forgotten laws.”

Aquilina said that “the European Directives for the GDPR do not allow this. The right to be forgotten talks about personal information on commercial search engines. Commercial search engines refers to Google, whose sole purpose is for profit.”

The Chamber of Advocates had also expressed its concern over this legal notice since no official channels on how to have your judgement hidden from the online database were listed, Aquilina said. 

Aquilina said the aim of the motion was to amend the Legal Notice. “There should be a level of compromise. In certain situations, personal details should not be published but it has be the decision of the judge to do so.”

“The motion therefore calls for a revision of the legal notice in order for this decision to be included in the duties of the judge or magistrate,” Aquilina said.

In his final plight, Aquilina called on the justice minister to remove the legal notice and start a public consultation process in order for a proper system to be put in place.

 

Edward Zammit Lewis

Zammit Lewis started off by claiming that the only reason this legal notice exists is to give a second chance to people who want to rehabilitate themselves back into society.

“This was and still is the intention of the legal notice. This is not a Sherlock Holmes film where judgements are being hidden while other judgements are being taken in secret.”

Zammit Lewis stressed on the point that in no way shape or form will this legal notice ever impede court proceedings. “We should have communicated the legal notice better as a Ministry but as the law states, all judgements are made public but why should someone in his 50’s still suffer the stigma for something he did 20 years ago?”

Although the legal notice removes court judgements from the online courts database, anyone who wants to see any court judgements can do so from the court registry. The legal notice only removes judgements from their online database.

“Furthermore, judgements are only removed from the Ecourts website only if the court sentence is served or the fines due are paid. The idea is to give people a second chance. Everyone makes mistakes and we have to give people the chance to reintegrate into society,” Zammit Lewis said.

In his closing remarks he also confirmed that there were cases whose appeals to remove their judgement was not accepted but stated that “we are always on the side of the people suffering from injustices.”

 

Owen Bonnici

Equality Minister Owen Bonnici, former justice minister, defended the legal notice by stating that we must never fail to give people another chance at life.

He also stressed on the fact that “the right to be forgotten will only be applicable on the Ecourts website. This does not apply on what various news portals report from court. Their right for freedom of speech will never be touched.”

Bonnici then shifted focus on a point raised by Aquilina on whether lawyers would be able to study older cases which have been removed. “Lawyers who want to revisit old files for research purposes can do so through their own unique access. This legal notice does not remove judgements but simply removes them from public access.”

Closing off the sitting, Aquilina said there seems to be a sense of agreement between both sides. “There is a sense of agreement when it comes to giving a second chance to people. People should not suffer for a mistake made at a young age.”

Aquilina’s only appeal was to conduct a public consultation process in order to “adapt the legal notice, improve it and make it as relevant as possible for the citizens.”

The motion was then put to a vote but it was suspended for the parliamentary session on Wednesday.