Peace of mind

Don't pack away the bunting quite yet '“ there is still more to celebrate, although sadly without another public holiday to do it in. This year is the 650th anniversary of the office of Justice of the Peace, whose powers to control behaviour dated from 1361 when Edward III gave them the power to bind over 'unruly persons' to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. That power, a prophylactic measure then and now, is the genetic ancestor of ASBOS, SOPOs and all the other acronyms devised to deter future mischief being made.

The 1361 Act which gave that power also directed that justices should meet to conduct local business four times a year '“ the origin of Quarter Sessions and Assizes, a system which survived until 1972 when Crown Courts replaced them.

It is somewhat astonishing to realise that we have only had Crown Courts for 40 years, and have had unpaid magistrates dealing with the bulk of all criminal law for nearly 700 years. It was not only rogues, vagabonds, poachers and highwaymen they dealt with in the early years but all local administration and government as well, including the Elizabethan Poor Law and its successors: they even had the power to regulate wages and to fix prices, a dangerously useful power for men who were exclusively appointed from the landowning and, later, the rich merchant classes.

The property qualification, which excluded men of 'mean estates', ensured that economic and social regulation was kept in the hands of those who had most to lose from its disruption. And they were not unpaid '“ an Act of 1389 allowed them a subsistence allowance of four shillings a day. It was unclaimed for the most part, presumably because it would be shameful and embarrassing for men of property to be seen to take the dosh.

The last vestige of local administrative power left is liquor licensing: when modern justices approve yet another late drink license in city centres already swimming in alcohol and its more noxious liquid consequences, they can look back on a history of real power and consequence.

But of course they do still have considerable power and consequence '“ 98 per cent of all criminal cases begin and end in the magistrates' courts, where JPs still vastly outnumber qualified district judges.

It is, of course, unkind and unfair to refer to them as 'muppets', as is done in some naughty circles, or to mock a reliance on legal advisers which can amount to co-dependency. There are times in any advocate's life when one longs for an open-hearted, open-minded and fresh JP instead of a blank-eyed, empathy-free, terminally cynical district judge who is longing for death or lunch, whichever comes sooner.

But not always. One recalls, still hooting with laughter after all these years, a friend who appeared before JPs in a court not unadjacent to Romford. Ok, it was Romford. He was making a plea in mitigation in the days before one had to file and serve bad character applications if you suggested the complainant fell anywhere short of beatitude. Happily slagging off the victim of some financial swickery, he glided towards his peroration: 'You may think indeed that the so-called victim in this case had the manners and morals of a market street trader'¦' A bellow from the bench, from the purple-faced chairman: 'And what is wrong with THAT?'

And I recall with a mixture of affection and glee the sweet lady chair of a bench who had surprisingly acquitted my client of possession of a small amount of Class A drugs. Perhaps they had not liked the cut of the gib of the two police officers who had seen him, in daylight, throw it away upon their approach, or perhaps they had not quite grasped the legal principles involved. However, they reached their decision, it was welcome '“ unlike her last remark: 'Does your client want his drugs back Miss Mackie?' I was so stunned I nearly said yes.

And in another part of the forest, the Con-Dems are busily deregulating our overregulated law. Splendid stuff, except for one small confusion: overregulation means a plethora of prohibitions which impede sensible action or behaviour '“ red tape in other words. It does not mean the removal of rights and responsibilities just to make life easier for local or national government.

Under the guise of 'regulation' they intend to repeal the Allotments Society Act 1908 under which local councils have a duty to provide allotments where there is a substantial demand for them.

If this succeeds it means that allotment land can be '“ and will be '“ sold for building or development by cash-strapped councils. And this cannot be allowed, we must man '“ and woman '“ the barricades to stop it (behind bars declares an interest: we have an allotment). Allotments are the modern equivalent of common land, and a vital resource of both food and community. And if we can keep one medieval system '“ Justices of the Peace '“ we can damn well keep another.