Two teenagers were arrested after stealing a taxi and holding a knife to the driver’s throat during a terrifying carjacking.

The apparent arrogance of the Jurists to legislation, the government, and the people of this state is now ‘beyond the pale.’

The recovered knife was well capable of inflicting the fatal wound of slitting the driver’s throat, as their actions implied.

The children appeared before a Children’s Court Magistrate and were granted bail.

This offence was committed some three hours after the new stricter laws came into effect in an effort by the government to reduce juvenile crime.

It is concerning that the legislation fails at the first test.

The actions of the Youths aggravate this by throwing the knife onto a Factory roof, demonstrating they well knew their actions were criminal, and that is further aggravated by the knife they used.

Not your common domestic variety, but a type used in abattoirs, butchery and gutting fish, arguably more dangerous than a machete, showing another flaw in the machete legislation.

While we support the Judiciary in its difficult task, blatant disregard for legislation cannot be tolerated, as it will undermine the Judiciary’s independence.

This matter of wanton disregard for the law by a Court is as egregious as the offences committed by the youths. This must be addressed, and the immediate issuing of proceedings against the Magistrate to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Parliament is necessary.

If this action is not taken immediately, these actions by a Magistrate could well lead to a breakdown in the long-held traditional relationship between the Jurists and the Government.

It is likely to force the Government to enact further legislation, reinforcing their role as the legislators and the Courts’ subservience to legislation.

A lack of decisive action by the Government will show them up as weak and not committed to proper and effective jurisprudence.

We are disappointed that other Jurists have not spoken out against this Magistrate’s actions, reinforcing the view that some Jurists have formed a club that encourages pushback against laws they do not favour for ideological reasons, rather than being servants of the Law.

We have long argued that the role of the Courts in reducing crime should be one of their primary considerations, and Justices should be held to account for their effectiveness.

Bad decisions that do not serve the community well must be identified and remedial action taken to ensure that all jurists perform to a satisfactory standard.

But the problem is that there appear to be no standards, and there does not appear to be an effective Judicial Review process to rein in outlier Justices or cancel their contracts.

In most other spheres of professional endeavour, there are checks and balances to ensure the particular cohort is performing to its optimum

However, there appears to be no such process in place for the Jurists, and if there are any, they are totally ineffective. The community is entitled to know how the Jurists are performing.

How the Courts can avoid accountability to the community for their role in the current crime wave is really extraordinary.

It is time that the current court system is put under the microscope.

• The performance of individual Jurists.
  • In sentencing,
  • Adherence to the Legislation,
  • Efficient use of allocated Court time,
  • Further education undertaken,
  • Their review of the impact of their decisions on sentencing and bail procedure after the event (performance effectiveness measuring).
• The performance of the Courts,
  • Court efficiency and work output by Jurists, compared across the Court system.
  • Using the same comparative process, the effectiveness of the jurist’s decision-making can be evaluated.

Like all their endeavours, it is critical that the Courts take responsibility for Service Delivery and not fall for the trap of masking poor Service delivery with Service efficiency, as many other organisations have.

When it comes to organisational or individual efficiency, it must be tested for its impact on Service delivery; if it reduces or affects that part of the equation, then back to the drawing board and try again.

The temptation to undertake a review of the system and the performance of individuals is real, however, who should conduct that review is the burning question, because the norm seems to be that any attempts to upgrade and make the Court system more productive and efficient is generally given to individuals who are part of and immersed in the current system, so anything that might upset the comfortable ‘apple cart’ will render the reviewer ‘persona non gratia’ in the Legal profession the fear of which controls the profession.