The judiciary has become more lenient in its independence

Since regaining independence, the judiciary's understanding of freedom of expression and the right of public officials to express their views on court decisions has developed significantly in recent decades. If at the end of the last century a criminal case was initiated against a Minister's opinion on a court decision, now the judiciary only calls for abstention from premature conclusions. However, the addressed minister promises that criticism of the judiciary, if he thinks it is deserved, will not be spared in the future.

Neatkarīgā has already reported that the outrage expressed by the Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns about the first instance judgment of Vidzeme District Court in Limbaži, which acquitted the former Chairman of the Board of Latvijas Dzelzceļš and Estonian millionaire Oleg Osinovskis, caused confusion among judges and the Bar. The Minister also questioned the professionalism of Judge Kārlis Jansons.

"In a situation which has serious consequences for the public's trust in the judiciary, this case, as a result of the judge's deliberate action, was given to a judge of whom certain facts are known and the judges themselves found that Jansons was not of the highest reputation or with the best professional assessment in the judiciary,” the Minister said regarding the court judgment.

It was more aggressive in the past

At the end of the last century, the then Minister of Justice Dzintars Rasnačs found himself in a similar situation. He found the court decision, which mitigated the security measure applied to Aleksandrs Lavents, who was accused at the time of sabotage and of driving Banka Baltija into insolvency, to be completely unacceptable.

After the public statements of Dz. Rasnačs, the Latvian Association of Judges even convened an emergency conference, in which judges greeted Dz. Rasnačs with unfriendly tapping of feet and other expressions of dissatisfaction.

Dz. Rasnačs also remembers these events.

"Times are changing. On November 17, 1997, an emergency conference of the Latvian Association of Judges in the Great Hall of the University of Latvia requested that the Prosecutor General's Office initiate a criminal case about my opinion on the change of Lavents' security measure. The Prosecutor General's Office concluded in the proposed inspection that it was within the framework of freedom of expression,”

the former Minister of Justice wrote on the microblogging site Twitter. Dz. Rasnačs did not want to delve into more detailed comments on J. Bordāns' run-in with the judiciary, saying that he is no longer a public official.

Wagged their finger

And times have really changed. The judges no longer perceive the Minister's opinion so sharply, although they point out that the Minister should not draw hasty conclusions.

“The Latvian Association of Judges draws attention to the fact that an abbreviated judgment has been pronounced in the case, currently the motives and arguments of the acquittal are not known, thus it is impossible to assess the validity of the judgment [..] In the opinion of LAJ, the assumptions made in the public space, including the assessments of the highest state officials, are premature,” says the Association of Judges in its statement.

The Council for the Judiciary, which did not exist in 1997, is just as calm in its assessment. In a resolution adopted on Thursday, it only calls on all members of society, including public officials, not to criticize judgments before they are available in full reasoning, and to observe the principles of civilized discussion when criticising, as well as respect the principles of judicial activity and judge's independence.

The resolution also calls for allegations of corruption in the courts to be reported to the competent authorities, with specific facts and evidence, but to refrain from unjustified insults to the court and judges, as well as spreading rumors, unverifiable allegations and fake news.

At the same time, the document emphasizes that court presidents must organize effective judicial communication with the public, and it is recommended that judges explain abbreviated judgments by informing the public about the main arguments of the judgment.

The Council for the Judiciary stated that in such a situation, the Council for the Judiciary considered it necessary, in the interests of protecting the country's democratic system and the independence of the judiciary, to explain that a full judgment was not yet available in the case. Consequently, it is not possible at present for anyone who has not taken part in the proceedings to express a reasoned opinion on the quality of this judgment. In addition, this judgment has not come into force and can be appealed to a higher court.

"A distinction must be made between criticism of a judgment, a court or a judge and insults. Criticism means expressing a civilized, concrete and reasoned opinion about shortcomings and mistakes. Dislike of the outcome of the judgment is not in itself a basis for criticism, especially if it is not followed by a reasoned justification,” the resolution emphasized.

Faithful to the uncompromising rule of law

The Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns himself does not see a violation in expressing his opinion publicly on the verdict in the case of U. Magonis and O. Osinovskis and promises to express his opinion on issues important to the society in the future as well.

At the meeting of the Council for the Judiciary, the Minister emphasized that he would continue to express his opinion in public in the future, despite the fact that someone may dislike him. "Even if the majority assumes that the facts I have mentioned should be hidden from the public, I will remain alone with this conviction, because in principle, if degradation has taken place, it will drag in more and more people," the Minister said.

He said he was surprised by the verdict and, like most members of the public, was concerned about a person being driven away with € 500,000 in cash in the trunk of a car, questions arose “was the indictment really so bad that it was impossible to prove the guilt of the accused,” J. Bordāns asked rhetorically.