JPs get reminder on secrecy

The country's top District Court Judge has questioned a decision by two Justices of the Peace to order their own names be suppressed.

Judge Russell Johnson said he would be writing to the JPs' governing body "to explain that the principle of open justice must be upheld", and that he did not believe the law allowed for the suppression of the names of judicial officers performing their duties in court.

His letter will also suggest that JPs concerned for their personal safety in court would be better advised going to the Courts Department, rather than imposing court suppressions.

But despite his comments the ruling may still stand.

"No particular limitation was placed upon the order," senior judicial communications adviser Neil Billington said last night.

"It still stands until it is revoked, or ... successfully challenged in the appropriate legal way, in court."

Judge Johnson's comments came after two Hastings-based JPs ordered their names not be published, during routine court hearings in Hawkes Bay this week.

One of the JPs later told the Herald they had made the order to ensure their personal safety in the courtroom.

The JP admitted to not being threatened while on the bench, and said the suppression order was in part to maintain anonymity.

But the order has upset members of the legal community, including Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer who told the Herald he had heard of no legal precedent for such an order.

Justice Minister Mark Burton was approached for comment about the suppression orders, but refused to say anything.

Sir Geoffrey, a former Prime Minister and one of the country's foremost legal minds, said last night there was no need for a legislative change to clarify the position for JPs, as they were never meant to be covered by suppression law in the first place.

"I think suppression laws are a different matter from this ... I don't believe the power exists in our law, and neither do I believe it should exist."

He said suppression was aimed at protecting witnesses, complainants, and sometimes defendants in criminal cases, and was a "very, very flexible thing".

However, it was being used more freely nowadays as privacy concerns gained importance.

"What has happened is that increasing views of privacy have been coming through, and people are asking 'Is this still relevant'?"

Sir Geoffrey felt the Hastings JPs should not be punished for imposing the order, were it to be reversed.