“An essential element of a fair hearing is that a trial must take place in a calm and objective atmosphere, far away from the commotion stirred by the crime, on which society and the media express their views and often, justifiably, their anger. Freedom of expression is sacred.”

He noted that it is common practice in trials for judges to instruct jurors to forget everything they may have heard or read about the case and base their judgement solely on information from the trial.

“Now explain to me how a juror can forget everything they had heard or read about a crime if the trial takes place a year after it takes place?” he questioned.

“When only a year has passed, particularly in the case of a serious crime, the incident would still be fresh in the jurors’ minds, and they may still be influenced by what they have read or heard.”

“That is not justice. And this is not just in the interest of the accused but in the supreme interest of justice itself and to avoid miscarriages of justice.”

He noted that the law already stipulates that compilation of evidence procedures must be wrapped up within a month, extendable by the President to up to three months.

In practice though, this is often extended through the so-called rinviji process, whereby the evidence in handed to the Attorney General, who has another month to decide whether more evidence needs to be collected.

This process can drag on for months, although the government has proposed limiting it to a single year.

Debono said the next step in judicial reform should involve a revision of the court expert appointment procedure, a proposal he had made as an MP.

“Due to a broken and inadequate system, members of the judiciary sometimes unfairly look bad, even though they are serious, honest, and of high integrity.”

“I criticised the system and proposed changes ten years ago, and today, more than ever, it needs to be updated. But nobody paid attention back then.”