Any malicious criticism of members of the judiciary is a shameful exercise, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti said Monday.

Speaking at an event to mark the start of the forensic year, Chetcuti said some comments – addressed individually or collectively – are intended to hurt the judiciary.

It is hurtful to hear journalists, opinion-makers and sometimes even people who hole top administrative decisions, attempt to obscure the work of a judge or magistrate, and try to weaken his or her position.

It is even worse when this is done maliciously or as a way to dent the public’s confidence in the judiciary, especially if there are ulterior motives. “If you want a strong judiciary, do not try to rock its foundations,” he said.

Having said this, the judiciary should not fall into the trap of replying, but it should remain silent. This is not a sign of weakness, but the essence of the spirit of those who are called upon to judge others. “We will continue doing our job without fear or favour,” he said.

Chetcuti said the judiciary itself is not above the law. It should always listen to and learn from what it said about the law courts.

But he said that although he, as Chief Justice, has the power and duty to bring forward any shortcomings by a member of the judiciary before the Commission for the Administration of Justice, he must do so only if he is armed with irrefutable, independent and objective facts.

He said that the courts are often criticised when judgments on seemingly similar cases vary. There are solutions to this, such as a sentencing policy that is drawn up internally among the judges and magistrates.

But there is another way out of this. It is Parliament which enacts laws, on which judges and magistrates act. If Parliament does not want to see discrepancies between judgments, then it should act to change the parameters that, as they are at present, lead to complaints, which are at times justified.

Speaking on court delays, Chetcuti said one has to admit that the system is not giving the desired results. He said that the Criminal Court, Family Court and the Gozo Court are barely keeping their heads above the water in terms of cases, as the pressure on them is increasing. This is happening as a result of an increase in the number of cases brought about by an increase in the population. Considering their resources and the fact that they were not prepared for such a phenomenon, it is only thanks to the judges and magistrates that these courts have not collapsed.

In the past years, statistics show that there is a growing number of cases being brought before the Civil and Constitutional Courts, but the number of judges has remained the same, Chetcuti said.

 At present there are 10 judges in the Civil Courts who receive an average of 240 new cases per year. Judges conclude between 150 and 200 cases per year, but the numbers do not really show the extent of the work carried out by the courts. Every judge in the Civil Courts has around 500 pending cases. Chetcuti said that it is easy to say that judges should be faster, but is this feasible? He requested a long-term solution to be found as the civil courts cannot cope with the volume of work.

The same goes for the Magistrates Court, with most magistrates under great pressure because of the high number of cases they have before them. The addition of a magistrate in the family court has helped to ease the workload, but the volume of cases is still high, he said.

Chetcuti suggested that some of the cases being brought before magistrates could be seen in tribunals or boards. This is because the cases carry low punishments or are more of an administrative nature than legal.

But the biggest would in the high volume of magisterial inquiries, he said. The forthcoming appointment of four new magistrates is only the first step towards a more efficient system, as Chetcuti said he believes that the foundation should be on an Inquiring Authority which operates from an autonomous building, and encompasses technical and forensic personnel who could help the inquiring magistrate reach conclusions in the shortest time possible, also with the assistance of full-time employees and experts.

The compilation of evidence procedures is also to undergo changes, but this must be accompanied by the relevant infrastructure to sustain its operations, he said.

He suggested that work currently being carried out by two judges in the Courts of Voluntary Jurisdiction could be carried out by a retired judge. Another proposal is the setting up of Administrative Court which deals with public administration.