OAR@UM Collection:

Id-Dritt : Volume 11 : Spring 1984

2020-12-18T12:31:41Z

Title: Id-Dritt : Volume 11 : Spring 1984 Editors: Cannataci, Joseph A. Abstract: 1/ Joseph A. Cannataci - Editorial -- 2/ Malcolm R. Pace - Arrest of Vessels in Malta -- 3/ Pierre Cassar - Publish and be Damned -- 4/ Toni Abela - The Changing Face of Law: A Marxist Perspective -- 5/ Marvin E. Aspen - The Trial of a Criminal Defendant in the United States -- 6/ A Review of Crimes Against -- 7/ Andrew Azzopardi, William Azzopardi, Joanne Catania,Charles Gafa, Maria Grech, Consuelo Herrera, Paul Saliba -- The Administration of Justice -- 8/ External Studies with the University of London -- 9/ Joseph Ellis - The Law Society 1984 -- 10/ Books Received

Editorial [Id-Dritt, 11, Spring 1984]

2020-11-01T06:22:31Z

Title: Editorial [Id-Dritt, 11, Spring 1984] Abstract: The 'Cry for Reform' is not the plaintive call of some proverbial lost voice in the desert. Get four or five law students together and if you'll start them off on the subject, you'll never hear the end of it! Even when one takes into consideration that law students are, after all, law students, and likely t<' over-state their case, one must admit that, regardless of sex, political inclinations and the endless divergence of opinions, one finally emerges with a number of areas of Maltese legal education which most students and Faculty members would like to see overhauled.

Arrest of vessels in Malta

2020-11-01T06:22:54Z

Title: Arrest of vessels in Malta Authors: Pace, Malcolm R. Abstract: The Vice-Admiralty Courts Act 1863 1 regulated in Malta a ViceAdmiralty Court as in other British Possessions of the time. Similar courts existed in Malta before this time. Its jurisdiction was analogous to that of the High Court of Admiralty of England and in general the Court took cognizance of all maritime causes, including those relating to prize. In many cases the jurisdiction of the Vice-Admiralty Court over such matters far exceeded the ordinary and fundamental limits of jurisdiction as established by Maltese general law. In this Court, proceedings were either by an action in personam or by an action in rem. Irrespective of who the shipowner was, the action in rem was exercised against the vessel which, as a separate distinct judicial entity, assumed the role of defendant in the proceedings and was considered to be the debtor. The flag of the vessel or the nationality or domicile of the plaintiff or the place where the occurrence giving rise to the claim took place, did not limit in any way the jurisdiction of the ViceAdmiralty Court in an action in rem. Jurisdiction was established by the mere fact of the vessel being within the territorial waters over which the authority of the court extended. The only fundamental requirement was that the vessel proceeded against was within the territorial waters and a warrant for arrest could be served and executed. Service of the warrant was considered to be notice to the shipowner of the proceedings. The vessel was represented by the master during the hearing of the cause.

Publish and be damned

2020-11-01T06:24:59Z

Title: Publish and be damned Authors: Cassar, Pierre Abstract: Ordinance No. IV of 1839 drafted by the Royal Commission of 1836, abolished 'censorship' and provided against 'abuses of the consequent liberty of publishing printed writings.' Before the said ordinance was enacted, printing was a Government monopoly. According to law, no trade or business could be exercised in Malta without a previous Government licence. By simply refusing to grant any licence to exercise the trade of printer, Government ensured that nothing was printed in Malta except at its own press and with its previous permission which could be withheld without any reason being given. Since Ordinance IV of 1839 censorship has never been reintroduced in Malta. However, the absence of legal restraint before publication is guaranteed by the Press Act of 1974 and not by our Constitution. Nevertheless, any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.