An election leaflet from my Lib Dem candidate dropped onto the mat yesterday. I had a glance at the candidate's details and was surprised to see that he claims to be a JP. When I was sworn in, we were told of certain basic no-nos, and high up the list was misuse of the JP status, including on any election literature.
I expect the hapless chap will be hearing from the Clerk to the Justices any time soon.
The Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Gross sent this on 13th April so the position is quite clear: "As you are aware, the suffix JP may be used on private and business letterheads etc in the same way as academic or professional qualifications. However, great care should be taken to avoiding personal reference to your position as a magistrate in circumstances where it could be perceived as an attempt to influence or gain advantage. There is particular sensitivity around usage in an electoral context."
ReplyDeleteThe Senior Presiding Judge presumes that being and publicising oneself as a JP brings some sort of advantage. In fact, the public is not automatically positive about the law these days. Moreover, what if a member of the electorate happens to be opposed to the idea that those who sit in judgment could become political government, too ? That member of the public could fairly claim that the candidate who does not disclose the initials JP is being deliberately opaque, has failed to disclose an important aspect of his or her background, and has, in fact, tried to defraud the vote.
ReplyDeleteThe Senior Presiding Judge, Lord Gross, in fact issued two sets of Guidance to JPs on their position in the context of the forthcoming election (the first on 24th March, the second that of 13th April referred to by Anon above). Neither prohibits the use of the suffix JP in an electoral context, but both rightly urge extreme caution about invoking the fact that one is a magistrate if it could be perceived as being done for electoral gain. In and of itself, there is nothing reprehensible about stating the fact that one is a magistrate to my eyes, and like Tony, I think that it is an important part of their background. Those JPs who stood for election as Police and Crime Commissioner had to stand down during the election, but it was a highly germane consideration for the electorate. So long as the candidate doesn't use the fact improperly, it seems to me a relevant and proper fact to disclose. I would hope that the chap had had a conversation with his Justices' Clerk and Bench Chairman beforehand. Not to have done so would be most inappropriate, but provide he did, and without seeing exactly what he wrote, I have no problem with his having mentioned this.
ReplyDeleteBefore the SPJ issued his latest guidance I had already asked my bench chairman if I could say in my parish council election flier that I was a JP, to show that I was an active volunteer in the community. The answer, after consultation with our Justices' Clerk, was a definite no, and this for a non-political unpaid seat. Your Lib-Dem candidate has rather shot himself in the foot on this one.
ReplyDeleteNo he hasn't.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but holding the office of Justice of the Peace disbars a person from being elected to Parliament, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI think that you are wrong. I won't quote chapter and verse, because one of our well-informed readers will no doubt give a definitive answer any time now.
DeleteKarl McCartney JP MP has been the member for Lincoln in the last Parliament.
DeleteIt turns out that High Court judges and Appeals Court Judges are disqualified from the Commons, plus Law Lords (obviously). under the 1992 Act, which admitted even hereditary Lords to the Commons provided that they are not amongst the 92 still entitled to sit in the Lords.
DeleteSome of the comments here reflect, sadly once again, the walking algorithms. And asking for permission is bound to result in refusal, just in case it would require a personally-responsible decision on the part of the bureaucrat concerned.
If your are a JP it is a matter of fact the same as having an LL.B or and OBE etc. There can be no objection to merely mentioning it. The trouble starts if you bang on about it campainging. It's common sense really- nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteThe guidance is as clear as it needs to be and one also has to consider the spirit of the guidance, not just the written word.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned, no magistrate should us the suffix in a political context such as electioneering.
The excuse that it is simply informing people as to your public-spirited nature is mendacious, and in any event that is the same as saying that you are indeed seeking to influence people in a manner that is favourable towards you. Why else mention it?
I would hope that the individual concerned is called to account for what is clearly a breach of the SPJ guidance
Walking algorithm on the loose. The SPJ can't tell you not to use the JP because he lacks the authority to do so. If he had that authority then he would certainly have used it. Also, Anon 20 April 2015 12:44: following the unstated spirit of a guidance is tantamount to walking algorithm obedience to an unauthorized restriction of your freedom to act in whatever way you (and not some bureaucrat or government employee) thinks fit.
DeleteAnon 20 April at 12.44 seems to think that electioneering should not be about who you are or what you do. I would suggest the exact opposite - that electors need to know who you are and what you do before they trust you with their vote. Quite how that becomes mendacious - defined as telling lies or being habitually dishonest - is way beyond me, particularly in the context of parish elections, which by their very nature are apolitical.
ReplyDeleteJaguar,
DeleteThe definition of mendacious is far wider reaching than you suggest. It also includes attempts to mislead or deceive, dissemble or to be disingenuous.
Use of the suffix by someone seeking political office may be seen by some as an attempt to use their judicial status in an attempt to influence or gain favour. Whether or not that is the motivation is irrelevant. What matters is how it is perceived and that is why there is guidance on the subject.
I quote "There is particular sensitivity around usage in an electoral context." How much clearer do you want it? There is no doubt in my mind what the SPJ is saying. Magistrates may or may not agree with the guidance but you have no right to ignore it. If you do ignore it then suffer the consequences.
There is simply no need to use the suffix at all. By standing for election you are already demonstrating a willingness to help your local community, or at least that is what it's supposed to mean. You let people know what you stand for and you canvas accordingly. I can simply see no reason at all to advertise your judicial status other than in an attempt to gain some advantage, whether real or imagined. Magistrates are supposed to be circumspect (it's defined as one of the 6 key qualities). That doesn't mean you can't seek election but it does mean that you shouldn't be using a purely judicial title whilst doing so.
'' ... parish elections, which by their very nature are apolitical.''
DeleteYou can't be serious!
Have you ever attended one?
Honesty,openness and transparency what ever happened to that?
ReplyDeleteWhy keep things secret or hide them. Its a plain fact and there should be no objection to mention it. You want to know who the real person is. I'm sick of these piving lying b****** who are all false and put theemselves up for election.
Let us just have palin aand simple honesty
The use of letters after your name in any circumstance other than when it is professionally appropriate is just so much self aggrandising nonsense.
ReplyDeleteA doctor (e.g.) applying for a job or signing a clinic letter should use the letters that denote his professional status, but should never use them outside that arena. Similarly a JP should use the post nominals "JP" only when signing things in the capacity of magistrate. This worship of titles and status is so last century! I cringe when I hear people insisting on being addressed by their title (Dr, Prof even Mister).
The fact that I can sign myself as JP BSc MB ChB FRCA CertLaw WSETCert and EPP (eleven plus passed) indicates bugger all about my ability to act outside of the areas of expertise denoted by the qualification (e.g. be an MP). I think it is just bad manners to use these titles and post nominals outside of very narrow circumstances.
Grump over.
Well writ. Medical doctors [GPs] who have the equivalent of around 35 'O' Levels, and wouldn't' know a PhD, or a D Phil if it bit them on their nates, get very shirty if not called Doctor - just try it, if you dare.
DeleteWell writ. Medical doctors [GPs] who have the equivalent of around 35 'O' Levels, and wouldn't' know a PhD, or a D Phil if it bit them on their nates, get very shirty if not called Doctor - just try it, if you dare.
Delete