Legal experts slam ‘reprehensible’ new law on court judgements

Law gives arbitrary powers to a State employee on whether to publish court judgements, 'leaving this discretion in the hands of someone who should not be exercising this discretion'.

 

Two legal experts condemned as “wholly reprehensible” a new legal notice that gives the director-general of the court total discretion over whether court judgements are published online, raising concerns about its implications on several fronts.

Former European Court of Human Rights Judge Giovanni Bonello described Legal Notice 456 as “reprehensible”. He told The Shift it is “objectionable for more than one reason”.

One of the main, questionable aspects of the legal notice lies in the fact that the director-general is a State employee who answers directly to the justice ministry, raising concerns related to independence.

The legal notice was originally drawn up three years ago but lay dormant until it was quietly pushed through last week.

In its wording, the legislation refers to a concept known as ‘the right to be forgotten’, which essentially refers to an individual’s right to ask an entity to delete their personal data from its registers in specific circumstances.

“This so-called right to be forgotten was established by the European Court of Justice in a judgement delivered in May 2014. This judgement, to the best of my knowledge, only referred to the right of individuals to request commercial websites with search engines like Google and YouTube to delete personal data relating to that individual,” Bonello said.

“Relying on a misunderstood and non-existent ‘right to be forgotten’ to censor official documents is wholly reprehensible,” he added.

Bonello also referred to the fact that no criteria are listed in terms of what the court’s director-general must consider when weighing out decisions on whether to publish a court judgment online or not.

“The Legal Notice allows the director-general to be utterly arbitrary in what he decides. This, too, is highly objectionable. Arbitrary power is the usher of tyranny. We must not forget that the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights mandate, as a prerequisite to a fair trial, that all the stages of the trial should be public –  including the judgement,” Bonello said.

This, Bonello added, was essential to “safeguard parties from covert manoeuvres and to keep the judiciary on its toes”.

Lawyer Michael Zammit Maempel echoed similar concerns, going further to state that once courts become secretive “there is no control over what’s happening” within their structures.

“The implication of all this is that, on the one hand, we have the FIAU, Moneyval and the FATF asking professionals such as myself to make sure that we check and double-check the track records of anyone who walks through the doorstep of their office and on the other you have the ministry of justice making this process more opaque,” Zammit Maempel said, referring to background checks for prospective clients.

“Checking online judgments would have been one way of doing this work transparently because it would have been available. Now, we are leaving this discretion in the hands of someone who should not be exercising this discretion,” he added.

While both Bonello and Zammit Maempel acknowledged that there may be certain circumstances in which a judge or magistrate may, for example, order a ban on the publication of names of victims in sensitive cases such as ones involving child abuse, the lack of criteria means the court’s director-general is not bound to stick to well-defined exceptions.

Given that such a legal notice can be challenged through a motion tabled in parliament by the Opposition, questions on the matter were sent to the PN’s spokesperson for justice, Karol Aquilina. When contacted for comment, Aquilina confirmed the Opposition is working on formulating a response to the government’s notice, stating they will provide further details later in the week.

                           
                               
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cynthia
Cynthia
1 month ago

Appeals against FIAU’s fines are heard behind closed doors. Judgments are not made public. So the FIAU first destroys someone’s reputation and business.

Then you sue them and once you prove that they were wrong, apart from having a ruined business, the judgement condemning FIAU’s alleged findings are not even published.

In the meantime, accountants, auditors, lawyers and notaries see their career being burdened thanks to the incompetent officials at FIAU, who led this country to grey listing.

joe tedesco
joe tedesco
1 month ago

TYPICALLY OF A PL GOVERNMENT TO DEPRIVE
MALTESE CITIZENS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION,
A REPREHENSIBLE TACTIC USED BY THE
GREAT DICTATOR DOM MINTOFF WITH
HIS ” MHUX FL-INTERESS TAL-POPLU “.

Gaetano Pace
Gaetano Pace
1 month ago

A court Judgement is res pubblica in the sense that it is the conclusion of a trial heard in public, by the public, to determine the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a felony.
Once the proceedings are held in public, the judgment is delivered in public, there should and there must be nothing to preclude the public from having direct access to it. In all fairness, if any were to be published then it should be all judgments that should be published. Otherwise, the law would be giving a Civil Servant access to censorship. Something that has been shunned and deterred by one and Sundry. Yes, the right to be forgotten arises out of the Data Protection Act where the individual details of an individual should not be used for any purpose without his consent. That was one issue I came across years before it was even considered in Malta. It was while I was studying the ID Card System of Sweeden where with the ID card the citizen was given the exclusive right to query any data system as to what data they had regarding him.
I would say that in specific cases wherein the course of Court proceedings, Court prohibits the publication of names, and/or proceedings, the judgment should not be published. Let alone the fact that judgments
are the conclusion of trials for which the Public pays through its teeth.

Related Stories

Speaker to decide whether ethics committee is to continue investigating Justyne Caruana
The parliamentary committee for standards in public life suspended
Support investigative journalism that speaks truth to power.