The Maltese judge : a neutral referee or an inquisitor in the production of civil testimony?

Abstract

The adversarial and inquisitorial systems elicit a number of differences between one jurisdiction and another. As a result, these distinguishing principles and procedural mechanisms are exemplified through a number of jurisdictions. Whilst traditionally, these principles and procedural mechanisms were distinct nowadays these dissimilarities seem to be no longer definite. The distinction between the adversarial and inquisitorial systems seems to be blunter during the production of evidence. Moreover, the judge’s and the advocate’s role vary according to whether the legal system is based on adversarial and inquisitorial principles. As a matter of fact, whilst under the inquisitorial systems, the judges assume a pro-active role during the proceedings, under the adversarial system the judge acts passively and is more like an umpire. Furthermore, our Maltese legal system presupposes a judge who acts like an umpire during the trial proceedings. Thus, through an evaluation of the witness transcripts one may be able to come to a conclusion as to whether the Maltese legal system still presupposes a judge who acts like a referee or else a one who takes the matter in his hands.