THE EDITOR, Sir:

There is a letter in The Gleaner of September 30, 2006 entitled 'JP's revocation should be a public matter' written by Mr. Philip Azan in which he puts forward certain important points relating to the caption.

I thoroughly agree with Mr. Azan's letter and I go further. The office ought to have a retirement age which is applied instead of having an appointment for life. It should be noted that even judges of the higher court have a retirement age.

Revocation may be used for any of the following: (a) misconduct (b) having reached the retirement age, or (c) a request by the holder of the office to be released for personal reasons, e.g., for ill-health or time demands.

Without a reason being given for the revocation, the presumption will be for misconduct and society will look askance upon the former holder.

Please take a look at these additional points to see whether there is any virtue in them.

I am, etc.,

DESMOND G. THOMAS

36 Glendon Circle,

Kingston 6