Magistrate Joseph Mifsud was insensitive to grieving family, judges’ watchdog says

Mifsud lacked ‘humanity and courtesy’ with grieving family and breached judicial code of ethics with behaviour in court

Magistrate Joe Mifsud (second from left)
Magistrate Joe Mifsud (second from left)

The Commission for the Administration of Justice delivered yet another warning for Magistrate Joseph Mifsud, in a complaint in which a bereaved family took issue with his behaviour and commentary in the courtroom and during sentencing.

The decision was delivered behind closed doors, soon after the judicial watchdog had found a breach of ethics by the same magistrate when he elected himself to include in his sentencing of a bird poacher, technical “advice” on trapping that had been proffered by the Maltese hunting lobby.

In this second decision, the Commission found Mifsud displayed “a lack of sensitivity” towards the family of Michael Sciberras, a motorcyclist who was killed at the age of 37 on 13 October 2011 by motorist Clive Tanti.

Tanti was driving under the influence of alcohol and at excessive speed on the wrong side of the road when he hit Sciberras with colossal force. The impact was so strong that Sciberras was thrown a distance of 190 metres and ended up on top of a tree. On 15 December 2016, Tanti was found guilty by magistrate Joe Mifsud of causing the involuntary death of Sciberras through negligent driving, and was sentenced to 480 hours of community service and a €5,000 fine.

In a lengthy complaint, Sciberras’s brother Jeff took umbrage with Mifsud’s behaviour from the first day he assumed responsibility over the criminal case against Tanti, and his sentencing. It was on the way Mifsud behaved with the family in court and with their lawyer, Nadine Sant, and on his gratuitous quotations from Pope Francis – which the family interpreted as veiled criticism towards their quest for justice – that the Commission for Administration of Justice found a breach of ethics.

“[The Commission] feels that in this case a lack of sensibility has been shown by Magistrate Mifsud towards the victim’s family,” the CAJ said, referring to the code of ethics requiring the judiciary to carry out its duty with dignity, courtesy and humanity.

“While the magistrate’s defence said that every judge had his character traits and ‘ways’ of how to conduct his sittings, and although this committee has no doubt that Mifsud had no intention of aggravating the sorrow of the Sciberras family, his actions did contribute to this, because in this case’s particular circumstances, he did not carry himself with humanity and courtesy with the family.”

Specifically, the Sciberras family was taken aback by Mifsud’s blithe commentary during sentencing and in his confrontations with the family and their lawyer.

In its complaint, the family noted that while their lawyer was recommending the family’s request for maximum punishment, she erroneously referred to the distance the victim had been hurled from the moment of impact as “190 kilometres”

At this point, Mifsud corrected the lawyer, saying “190 metres”, to which the counsel replied, “excuse my mistake.”

Yet it was at this point that the carefree Mifsud angered the family when he stated, with a smirk on his face: “Ah well, in reality it could have been 190 kilometres, right to heaven.” (U iva, fir-realtà 190 kilometru tajru... lejn il-ġenna).

Jeff Sciberras stated in his complaint that he was incredulous at the remark; moments after, Mifsud appeared to take issue with his lawyer’s request for maximum punishment, by accusing her of playing with the family’s emotions. Jeff Sciberras left the courtroom outraged, prompting Mifsud to dispatch his marshal to order Sciberras back to the courtroom, and announcing to the court – where Sciberras’s mother and father were present – that he would send their son to prison.

Sciberras re-entered the court and apologised, but told the Commission that he was treated to a “patronising speech” from Mifsud that their lawyer was playing with their emotions. Sciberras told the Commission in no uncertain terms that the magistrate had been “effectively cruel towards our family and caused all of us a great amount of pain and stress.”

Here, the Commission remarked  in its decision that Mifsud was unable to “limit himself to a simple correction of the distance and just stop. The comment he passed in court in this regard was certainly not on.”

The Sciberras family was further incensed by various comments Mifsud made throughout the case. On assuming the proceedings from its former magistrate, Mifsud’s first comment in open court to the aged parents of the deceased were: “You won’t get anything out of this court” (M’inthom se tieħdu xejn minn hawn) – something the family felt had dampened their will for justice for their son’s death.

They also pointed out his contemptuous attitude to their lawyer Nadine Sant, with his aggressive grilling of her request for the highest sentence for Tanti accorded by the Criminal Code.

On another occasion, Mifsud saw it fit to validate the defence’s sole witness, a family doctor, when Sant pointed out that he was not qualified to give a psychiatric opinion on the accused. Mifsud glibly told the lawyer that the doctor, Joseph Ferriggi, “had three quarters of Rabat’s population under his care.” Eventually, the magistrate declared in sentence that Ferriggi’s evidence was irrelevant.

The quotation from Pope Francis which Mifsud used in his sentence
The quotation from Pope Francis which Mifsud used in his sentence

The family also took issue with quotations from Pope Francis and Archbishop Charles Scicluna which Mifsud included in his judgement, extolling the value of forgiveness and rehabilitative sentencing.

And here the Commission agreed that such quotations were out of place in this kind of sentencing.

“The committee brings to the magistrate’s attention that these quotes have no place in court sentencing. They might perhaps give the sentence a social dimension, but the only quotations in a court sentence should be those of authors of law and jurisprudence. The committee therefore feels it is opportune to bring to Mifsud’s attention not to quote personalities in his sentence, authoritative though they might be.”