Controversial magisterial inquiry reform clears Second Reading stage

Government’s controversial magisterial inquiry reform passed Second Reading stage after parliament voted in favour.

All 40 government MPs voted in favour, while all 31 Opposition MPs voted against.

Under the proposed rules, ordinary citizens will have to file a police report first and only after six months can the person ask the Criminal Court to examine at what stage the police investigation has arrived. The judge presiding over the Criminal Court will hear the police behind closed doors, the person filing the request and the suspect.

At this stage, the Criminal Court will decide whether the police should continue with their investigation, with the possibility of giving them a term to conclude it, whether proceedings should stop, or order the police to request a magisterial inquiry as originally requested by the person who filed the report. The court will make its decision on the balance of probability.

If an inquiry does kick off and the magistrate concludes the request for an inquiry was filed abusively and maliciously, the person who made the request will be required to pay court expenses. Such a decision can be appealed.

The reform includes measures applicable to all types of magisterial inquiries, including those initiated after fatal accidents.

A magisterial inquiry will have to conclude within six months extendable to a maximum of two years. After two years, the magistrate will have to pass on the acts of the case to the Attorney General for further action. The AG can decide to request a continuation of the inquiry.

Victims of crime or relatives will have the right to request an update on the progress of a magisterial inquiry that concerns them after a lapse of six months. No such right exists today. They will also be given a copy of the magistrate’s report at no charge.

The reform will also ensure that a suspect called in to testify in the inquiry, whichever type it is, should be accorded the right to disclosure and have a lawyer present.

Bill 125 has received criticism from NGOs, political parties and civil society groups, who argue it is more restrictive.

Some have also expressed concerns over the speed at which the Bill has been put forward for parliamentary consideration.

The Prime Minister has stressed the reform would not reduce access to justice but rather prevent its misuse, particularly in cases involving businesses and individuals subjected to inquiries without sufficient evidence.

Despite criticism by the Opposition, NGOs and other political parties, Abela has soldiered on, saying the reform is partly coming from a recommendation made by the Venice Commission in 2018.

He has said the government will not be obstructing justice, saying the Labour administration has been behind a number of reforms in the sector.