The result flowing from this new definition was that unless the statute specifically state that a summary offence is triable by two or more justices of the peace, a bench of lay magistrates is incompetent to try such an offence. [Hart vs Black (1956) 7 JLR 56.]

Under the pre-1943 position in many statutes, jurisdiction with the RM's special statutory jurisdiction was conferred on the lay magistracy by the words "before a RM or two justices of the peace".

Law revision

The Law Revision Commission taking advantage of this new (1943) definition by the simple process of removing the words "two justices of the peace or failing to name the judicial personnel many offences formerly tried by justices of the peace in petty sessions, the jurisdiction on the law magistrate was reduced leaving them with petty assaults, and breaches of the Town's and Communities Act. The position of road traffic offences is even more complex, which I will not address in this correspondence.

This matter has to be addressed by the minister of justice and attorney general and training of these special lay magistrates be undertaken by the Judicial Training College in Kingston. The minister should give consideration to the following matters:

1. Amend the definition of Summary Court.

2. The offences removed from their jurisdiction post 1943 amendments to return to the petty sessional jurisdiction of JPs those offences that are by nature petty, e.g. certain breaches of the Main and Parochial Road Law.

3. Conferring of lay magistrates concurrent jurisdiction with the resident magistrate to try certain minor road traffic breaches, e.g parking offences.

4. Amend Sections 55 and 56 of Larceny Act as well as increasing the value of goods stolen or unlawfully received.

5. Conferring petty sessional jurisdiction on a bench of two justices of the peace.

6. Retain and increase their quasi-judicial and administrative functions.

These suggestions I think will remove the present palm tree-like jurisdiction which exist, what is outlined in this email is far from being extensive. I merely "strike the keynote and leave it to hearers to interpret the melody".

I hope that the contents hereof will assist in some way of pushing the envelope to achieve your noteworthy suggestions as it is not beyond the competence of JPs, properly instructed, to try such claims in their petty sessional jurisdiction which courts must be tailored to be economic and expeditious.

With every good wish.

I am, etc.,

FREDERICK C. HAMATY, QC

Savanna-la-Mar,

PO Box 7

Westmoreland, Jamaica W.I