To describe the chairman of a magistrates` bench as a "justice chief"
is poetic licence gone too far. It illustrates the dangers of some
egotistical J.P.s forgetting who they are, what their function is, to
whom they have responsibilities and to whom they are accountable. Add to that error of judgement the fact that there is no M.P. who does not wish to
be associated with efforts to prevent the closure of a court in their
constituency and one has a juicy headline. For any M.P. and this one in particular it is a golden opportunity for a few more quotable lines on his website
whatever the final decision regarding the court in question. Perhaps Mr
Chris Woodland, chairman of South East Staffordshire Magistrates,
considers the kudos of the publicity worthwhile. I suggests he reads or
reminds himself of the Media Guide for the Judiciary.
To be fair, the Chairman does not describe himself as a 'Justice Chief'. That is simply the strap line to the article and is the responsibility of the journalist who wrote it.
ReplyDeleteStill, you are quite right about seeking publicity, no matter how laudable the cause. I would expect that the Justices' Clerk will, or should be, having words.
A bit ironic that a jp blogger criticises a jp for airing views on the administration of justice.
ReplyDeleteAs I blogger before and since my retirement I am responsible to myself alone. I am anonymous and not seeking any personal agrandisement. The person subject of the post is a representative of his colleagues and has responsibilities to them. In circumstances similar to the publicity of the newly appointed 18 year old about which I recently posted this J.P. bench chairman risks the wrath of the Senior Presiding Judge. Perhaps neither considered that possibility.
DeleteI'm not sure you've read the Media Guide correctly. As I understand it nothing there says Judicial Office Holder must not speak to the media, it says you should be careful about what you say (and how you say it) so that there can be no perception of political or other bias. I'm not saying either of the people you posted about has necessarily been the smart but I also don't see that their "statements" have brought the judiciary into disrepute or questioned their impartiality and ability to see justice done.
ReplyDeleteOf course this also assumes that neither party involved the JPO in their statements. I'm not saying they did, but its odd that the 18 yr old was a story, or was certain he was the youngest without some official involvement, and I am sure there are some people within the court system who's livelihoods depend on local courts staying open who might be cooperative in providing guidance to Bench Chairmen who are planning to air their view.
Commenting on access to justice, highlighting a mistaken (?) perception of the magistracy as old and outdated, or helping the public understand the judicial process are all positive things that an office holder *can* do without bringing the magistracy into disrepute. Where the guidance rightly gets upset is the thought of office holders commenting on individual cases, politics etc. Whilst bloggers do anonymise the cases they refer to - I would suggest they actually embark on a more dangerous line than those you highlighted.
In contrast yourself and other "anonymous" JP bloggers potentially are making both political comments, and whilst hiding YOUR name openly refer to your (former) position which means that those views are associated generally with the magistracy. I think the comments