Scrapping the jury system would not guarantee better justice, Repubblika warns

Scrapping Malta’s jury system would not guarantee better justice, rule of law NGO Repubblika has warned, calling instead for an independent review following two controversial murder acquittals.

The NGO made the argument in a position paper published on Tuesday, days after a jury acquitted Lorin Scicluna of murdering Lassana Cisse.

Two months earlier, a separate jury had cleared Yorgen Fenech of all charges related to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.

Both verdicts had created a “crisis of confidence”, the NGO said, raising “serious and troubling questions about the administration of criminal justice”.

Repubblika said that while “public opinion cannot determine the correctness of a verdict,” the public was being required to “accept outcomes it cannot understand”.

“This is a crisis of institutional legitimacy, not a licence to presume the guilt of acquitted defendants or attribute improper motives to jurors,” Repubblika said.

Eliminating lay jurors is problematic

Although the verdicts have led to calls to scrap lay juries and replace them entirely with professional judges, Repubblika argued that citizen participation in the administration of justice remains invaluable.

Lay jurors help ensure that justice is administered “not merely for the people but also in their name and with their involvement”, Repubblika said. They also help spread responsibility for the administration of criminal justice beyond the professional judiciary.

Lay jurors often also bring perspectives that professional judges might overlook, challenging assumptions that might otherwise go unquestioned, the paper said.

Removing lay jurors would eliminate these benefits without any “guarantee [of] the elimination of erroneous or controversial verdicts,” the paper argues, pointing out that professional judges are also prone to mistakes or “unconscious prejudice”.

Independent review of the criminal justice system

Repubblika instead called for an independent review of Malta’s criminal justice system, tasked with examining how it operates and identifying ways to improve it.

The review would examine jury criminal justice systems overseas, and consider how to reform Malta’s established practices. The review would ultimately be tasked with establishing how to “best combine democratic participation, professional expertise, impartiality, transparency and accountability”.

Repubblika’s paper points to several potential issues ripe for reform.

For instance, judges may focus too heavily on explaining legal principles when summing up a trial, rather than helping jurors understand how the evidence relates to the decisions they must make.

The paper also raises concerns about jurors not having to explain how they reached their verdicts.

At the moment, the public is being left in the dark over which evidence was accepted or rejected or how seemingly contradictory evidence was viewed.

“This opacity invites speculation,” Repubblika said, raising suspicions of partisan influence or bias among jurors.

The review would also need to look beyond the criminal trial itself and ask questions about broader institutional weaknesses, including concerns over political interference in law enforcement, court delays and inadequate professional training, among other things.