Criticism of J.P.s strongly rejected

Press, 27 November 1986, Page 23

Criticism of J.P.s strongly rejected

PA Palmerston North Suggestions that Justices of the Peace should not preside over, and were not competent to sit in on, preliminary hearings involving serious cases have been strongly denied. The president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, Mr Neil Johansen, of Palmerston North, replied to criticisms by the president of the Criminal Bar Association, Mr Peter Williams. Mr Williams had said: “The quality of justice would be improved if they didn’t preside.” Mr Johansen said Mr Williams’ statement was unfair and appeared to be less than fully informed on the level of specialised tMining and qualification required by Justices of the Peace serving on the bench in New Zealand. He said that he studied

the initial and advanced judicial courses held by the Technical Correspondence Institute and graduation from these courses was becoming a pre-requisite to a justice presiding in court.

“Furthermore, these courses were supplemented by regular revisionary instruction carried out by justices’ associations with

encouragement from and, very often, under the guidance of District Court judges,” Mr Johansen said. Mr Johansen said it was a significant objective of the Royal federation — of which all 27 district associations were members — to promote a high standard of efficiency of services (both Ministerial

and judicial) rendered by Justices of the Peace to sustain the confidence of the public in the principle that the people may be privileged to participate in the administration of the law. Mr Johansen said the Royal federation was at present preparing submissions to the government which, among other things, were likely to recommend amending the Justices of the Peace Act, 1957, to provide the statute that no Justices of the Peace may be called upon to perform any duties in any district court until all training approved by the chief district court judge has been completed satisfactorily. Furthermore, it is proposed that the chief district court judge may determine the levels of competency of individual Justice of the Peaces in

such manner as he considers appropriate and also the nature of court duties which justices, either collectively or individually as appropriate, may perform.

Mr Johansen said all of these proposals were being initiated by none other than Justices of the Peace themselves who perform their duties and responsibilities to the community on a completely voluntary basis. “To this extent I believe they deserve some greater recognition and support than is indicated in Mr Williams’ statement,” he said.