The recently appointed head of the supreme court is aged 72 and jurors are now selected up to 75, doubtless to ensure that justice is delivered by people with wide experience of life. But JPs are arbitrarily asked not to sit the moment they reach 70, despite over 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates whose competence is paramount. Does this age inequality therefore put the ethos of effective/local justice in occasional jeopardy as Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service strictly enforces this rule, most often against the will of the very justices who are best equipped to do such an important job, in the belief that younger JPs readily have the same experience and availability to sit? Isn’t it time this iniquitous situation was abolished by raising JP retirement age to be in line with jurors and at the same time applying a fixed tenure to ensure that adequate recruits also join the bench to gain experience?
Peter Power
Lyndhurst, Hampshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
