Magisterial inquiry reform ‘leaves much to be desired’: Chamber of Commerce

Proposed changes to magisterial inquiries may have been well-intentioned but the Bill tabled in parliament “leaves much to be desired”, the Chamber of Commerce said.

“In the quest for truth and justice, it is important not to restrict our citizens’ ability to request magisterial inquiries on matters of public interest or to limit our magistrates’ discretion in following leads,” the Chamber said in a statement on Monday, three days after the Justice Minister addressed the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development on the objectives of the reform.

The Second Reading stage in parliament on Bill 125 starts on Tuesday as government rushes through the process to enact wide ranging changes to the manner magisterial inquiries are held. One of the more radical and controversial aspects is the removal of the right for private citizens to directly petition the courts for a magisterial inquiry to be held on suspected wrongdoing.

The Chamber of Commerce joins a growing chorus of opposition to the removal of this right. Over the weekend, the Chamber of Advocates strongly criticised the reform and the Nationalist Party has said it will vote against it and reverse the changes once in government.

In its brief analysis of Bill 125, the Chamber of Commerce said magistrates should be trusted to dismiss baseless claims and that they will use the police and experts to dig deeper. “We have to trust that magistrates will strike a balance between the rights of suspects and the integrity of the investigation when deciding who to question and when, mindful of the disclosure of evidence that needs to be made when questioning suspects,” the Chamber said.

It also criticised the increased level of proof being imposed on the initiator of an inquest, insisting this is tantamount to obstruction of justice. The new law, if approved, will require the individual to requesting an inquiry to submit ‘admissible proof’ and any decision whether an inquest takes place should be based on ‘a balance of probability’ rather than ‘reasonable suspicion’.

“Under the current law, the inquiring magistrate can act on prima facie evidence and the executive police can act on anonymous tips in a number of criminal instances. Placing the onus of providing hard evidence on private citizens who lack the means and the rights of access to pursue investigations privately is tantamount to obstructing justice. It is the role of the inquiring magistrate to determine what evidence needs to be sought and to instruct the police to carry out the necessary investigations if the quest for truth and justice so warrants,” the Chamber of Commerce said.

The Chamber also raised doubts on the limits being imposed on magistrates to investigate only the indicated suspect, questioning what will happen if accomplices and collaborators are uncovered.

It also queried the limitations being imposed by the Bill on the use of court experts.

The Chamber highlighted several other aspects in the Bill, which it said were positive developments, such as the right for victims to be given the inquiry report and to be informed of progress. It also agreed that the initiator of an inquiry should file the request under oath.

Significantly, the Chamber also cautioned against confusion created between magisterial inquiries and libel cases, something that has been done by government exponents in defence of the reform.

“We have had libel cases that dragged on for various reasons, impacting people's reputation in the meantime. There may be the need to expedite the judicial process in libel cases, but this has nothing to do with the process of magisterial inquiries initiated by private citizens. Let us be clear on what we want to achieve when proposing legal reforms, without confounding issues or without resorting to undue haste that only serves to fuel suspicion and detract from meaningful consultation on matters of national importance,” the Chamber concluded.