JPs agree on need for change

AS stated earlier in 2008 that JP’s as well as the various stakeholders of the system, were extremely co-operative and unanimously agreed that the system could not be expected to function effectively in its current state. During meeting the issue as to whether the JP system was required at all in today’s environment was raised. The Association considers that this is one of the most critical issues to be addressed in dealing with the transformation of the JP’s system.

Given the transformation taking place in the criminal Justice system, the office of the JP may evolve after further deliberate consideration as to its relevance in light of the proposed reform being considered among the JP’s and COA’s there were divergent views, and in some cases even diametrically opposed.

For instance, among the views expressed were:

{1} The JP system should not only be retained, it should be enhanced because it is one of the bedrocks of the criminal justice system.

{2} The JP system should be retained, but the scope of their roles and functions should be given more responsibility. In particular, they should play a role in the bail process in minor matters.

{3} Video technology be introduced to record ID parades and record giving of voluntary statements, but JP’s should be retained to authenticate the process such as ensuring their Miranda rights were respected and for instance they were allowed a telephone call and were given a meal if required.

That JP’s continue in their current functions, but as full time employees of the state and training be given to assist them in their judicial functions; and that this include adequate compensation.

A scan of JP systems internationally revealed that while some Jurisdictions have criminated the JP system, many commonwealth countries continue to use the office as a fundamental part of the administration of their criminal justices system. At the same time it can be recognised that the JP’s functions, both statutory and voluntary, may not only provide avenues for the challenges regarding transparency and accountability outline above, but could also play a part in the criminal risk to which they have been exposed.

However, changes to this office, including the possibility of its elimination, must be informed by experiences and lessons learned from other commonwealth countries. Some of these countries have planned and monitored the evolution and effectiveness of this office in their respective jurisdiction for several decades.

Undoubtedly, while the ministry is engaged in evidence based decision making, there must be a Transition period which allows for improved service delivery to the public and less security risk to JP’s.

The JP’s & COA’s would be required to give very careful consideration to the relevance of the system in light of the many reforms taking place within the administration of justice and ensure that recommendations for long term changes better serve the community and the people of Guyana in the interim, this committee should:

{1} Review the Criminal Justice Systems as well as commonwealth countries where JP’s have been given broader judicial functions.

{2} Review applications and make recommendations to the Attorney General for the appointment and removal of Non Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace.

{3} Review the roles and functions of justices of the peace.

{4} Be responsible for ongoing training and assessment of justice, and ensuring that training and refresher courses allows them to be aware of new developments in the substantive law and/or the practice and procedure relevant to their office.

{5} Be responsible for the producing of the handbook for JP’s.

{6} Re-build the image of JP’s, by promoting public education programmers and ensuring that errant justices are removed from the system.

{7} Maintain a database and register of all justices. This register must be compulsory for all functioning justices, and the listing shared with the general community.

{8} Prepare and issue identification cards for all JP’s to facilitate easy performance of their functions.

{9} Ensure all necessary forms and documents used by JP’s are reviewed on a timely basis and that updated forms are made available to them.

{10} Meet on a regular basis with JP’s so as to assess the progress of the office and to provide a forum where the concerns of the peace can be expressed and addressed.

{11} Be accessible to Justice of the Peace through the office of the Attorney General {A.G.}.

{12} By having more JP’s of country status, police officers would have easier access to JP’s since there would be more of them.

{13} There would be less overburden on the few country JP’s which currently happens where one JP has too many matters to deal with. There would be more even distribution of matters.

{14} It would be easier for the police to access a JP at night since less justice would be contained by magisterial borders. The jurisdiction of JP’s in the various districts also presented confusion such as when a suspect from one magisterial district is held in another district.

{15} Justices who did not wish to be involved in certain type of matters in their community, such as those related to the trafficking of illicit drugs, can advise the police to look for justices who resided much further away knowing that there are many more available to the police.

{16} Family members of accused persons being held in prison can turn to a JP known to them in their area who can then accompany them to the prison, and so these persons would be less likely to be vulnerable to “touts” working outside the prison walls.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.