J.P’s JUSTICE

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 October 1928, Page 2

J.P’s JUSTICE

A MELBOURNE CONTROVERSY.

MELBOURNE, September 17. “We do not for one moment subscribe to the view that a police magistrate is one whit superior on the Bench to a Justice of the Peace, except that he is a technical man.” Mr Arthur Collins, of Collingwood, Melbourne, as senior vice-president and trustee of the Honorary Justices’ Association of Victoria, made this statement to the Melbourne “Herald.” He was commenting on a reference to J.P’s. contained in the Law Institute Journal, which said it could not appreciate the apparent hankering of untrained men for opportunities to interpret important law points. The Journal said it wondered “whether the services of some justices are given for the sake of the State or for the sake of a little glow of self-glori-fication.” i “On the Bench,” continued Mr Collins, “we are supposed to give decisions on knowledge and fact, and not on legal technicalities. If it comes to that the Magistrate is not a lawyer. He is simply a step above the ordinary civil servant. If it is a lawyer that is required, why not appoint a barrister?

Justices are on the Bench because of their sound commonsense as business men and men of the world. They give their decisions on the cases before them on that basis. The sooner this misguided idea is corrected —that the S.M. is better qualified on the Bench than the J.P.—the better, because Justices are tired of hearing it brought up.” Mr Sam Manger said he did not sit on the Bench, but he knew the unselfish work that was done by Justices in this respect as a public duty. “Of course, like every other body,” lie added, “there are all sorts among the .Justices, who number 4,000, with au active* list of 1.500. 1 think the .Justices who sit on the Bench do their work verj' well indeed, and expend a great deal of time and trouble in the jmldic service. Their experience, 1 consider, is valuable in arriving at decisions from a commonsense point of -view.”