Legal Deja' Vu

I shall not venture to comment directly on the current court proceedings concerning those accused of the homicide of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Suffice to say that I believe the judiciary is under enough pressure as it is given the way things are developing in the situation. I have always had and still have full respect towards our judiciary and towards the Maltese Courts and because I hold the judiciary and the Maltese Courts in a light of respect I will not be the one to throw reckless commentary online or in any other forum for that matter.

What we are seeing in this case is not however altogether new territory for our courts. Indeed, this is a case deja’ vu where history is repeating itself. I’m sure that the lawyers and the members of the judiciary involved in the Daphne Caruana Galizia need no lectures from me so I will not even dare be presumptuous enough to lecture them. I write merely by way of legal and historical interest and not to lecture anyone or to pontificate to anyone about what should be done with regards to the case at hand.

In the 1980’s Malta’s political scene was alight with the famous ġlieda ta’ l-iskejjel tal-knisja. The case went from being a political battle between the church and the state to being a legal battle between the two. A problem developed when sitting judges where being asked to recuse themselves from hearing the ensuing legal case due to perceived conflicts of interest. For a time it seemed the case was destined to end in embarrassment for the Maltese Courts.

On October 22nd 1984, the Hon. Wallace Gulia, the Hon. Stephen Borg Cardona and the Hon. Joseph D Camilleri carved their names in legal history when in the case L-E.T. Rev.ma Monsinjur Arċisqof Ġuzzeppi Mercieca pro et noe vs L-Onorevoli Prim Ministru noe et, the court presided by them declared that,

Ikkunsidrat li jidher essenzjali li jkun assigurat li ssir ġustizzja skond il-liġi. Il-Qorti tippretendi li l-ġustizzja skond il-liġi ssir bir-rakkmu u r-raffinatezza kollha ukoll; iżda l-ordni tal-prijorita’ loġika fil-ħajja żgur li titlob li l-ewwel għandha tkun assigurata s-sostanza tal-ġustizzja u wara d-delikatezza tar-raffinetezza tagħha.

In the same case the court cited ‘Constitutional and Administrative Law – de Smith’, fourth edition, Street and Brazier who in page 570 had declared that

In very exceptional circumstances, all the adjuticators are affected by a disqualifying interest in which case they may have to sit as a matter of neccessity.

This 1984 case makes for very interesting reading given the circumstances we are currently witnessing.