A retired magistrate on the supplemental list has been issued with formal advice for misusing the JP suffix.
The Reverend Terence Young was acting in his capacity as a union representative when a complaint was made about his behaviour. He was alleged to have acted aggressively, misused his JP status in written and verbal communications and threatened to disclose information to “court officials”. The complainant alleged he had done so to intimidate and influence the relevant decision-making process.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: ‘When magistrates retire, they are automatically placed on the supplemental list. While supplemental list magistrates have no judicial powers, they are entitled to continue to refer to themselves as a JP.
‘They are also subject to the same expectations in how they conduct themselves as serving magistrates. This includes being circumspect and avoiding use of the suffix ”JP” in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence.’
Young accepted he had used his JP suffix routinely in his email signature and letterhead and considered it was appropriate to do so ‘as it demonstrated his professional qualifications and that he was a person of integrity’. He denied he acted inappropriately or that he had mentioned his JP status verbally while acting as a voluntary union representative. Young said the complainant had ‘misunderstood’ him as he had referred to discussing the case ‘with ‘senior union officers’ not ‘court officials’.’
An investigation found Young had acted professionally in his capacity as a union representative, had not given any verbal indication of his JP status and did not refer to“court officials when referring to disclosing information.
The investigation concluded that Young’s ‘extensive reference to his JP suffix in written communications with the complainant had breached the guidance and risked reputational damage to the magistracy’.
The JCIO added: ‘Whilst it was not Revd. Terence Young’s intention, the recipients were genuinely concerned that this was an inappropriate attempt to intimidate them.’
Mr Justice Keehan, on behalf of the lady chief justice, and with the lord chancellor’s agreement issued Young with formal advice.
