Chief judge to investigate publicity-shy JPs

New Zealand's senior district court judge will investigate the case of two JPs who ordered their own names be suppressed out of fear for their personal safety in court.

Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson said yesterday he was aware JPs had security concerns while sitting in court, "but I know of no previous example in New Zealand where any judicial officer has suppressed their own name".

In what is believed to be an unprecedented move, the two Hastings-based JPs made the suppression order after first approaching the local newspaper, Hawke's Bay Today, to ask that they not be named in stories.

The JPs made the suppression orders themselves, after editor Louis Pierard refused their request.

One of them admitted to the Herald to never having been threatened in court, but believed personal safety had to be maintained and suppression orders were the way to go about it.

Another reason was a desire to keep a low public profile, the JP said.

"Personally, I like to do things behind the scenes, rather than be brought to the front."

Questions remain about the suppression's legality, and Federation of Justices Association president Gavin Kerr said he would be taking advice today "in terms of where it sits".

Mr Kerr said the decision was an unusual one.

"I have never had occasion to use it, and I haven't heard of it being used before. But that's not to say it isn't within the bounds of procedures."

Scott Optican, an associate law professor at Auckland University, and former United States criminal prosecutor - described it as "the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard".

Names of judges, Crown prosecutors and police were not routinely suppressed, and there was no reason for JPs to be different, he said.

The fact no actual threats had been made against the JPs made the orders "even more disturbing".

He believed the JPs should resign.

Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer was shocked.

"I don't know of any precedent for this. These are judicial officers and they sit in court."

Sir Geoffrey said the order could be in breach of the 1990 Bill of Rights, and any judicial review challenge to the order would likely be "quite productive, quite quickly".

Law Society criminal law committee member Richard Earwaker said he could understand JPs wanting to protect themselves, but was unsure exactly what jurisdiction they had to make such an order.

Mr Pierard said yesterday the suppression order "defies every tenet of how we perceive the justice system to be", but would allow a chance for common sense to prevail before challenging the suppressions.


WHAT JPS DO

The duties of a court-warranted Justice of the Peace include:

* Hearing certain summary offences

* Presiding over preliminary hearings (depositions hearings)

* Conducting traffic courts

* Hearing bail applications and requests for remands and adjournments