This edited version of an original research paper prepared for a postgraduate criminology course at Melbourne University defends the institution of justices of the peace against criticisms by barristers, solicitors, court clerks, and judges. Defendants, witnesses, or other members of the lay public appear never to have expressed dissatisfaction with lay magistrates, however. Part of an 800-year-old tradition, justices of the peace bring common sense and sympathy to a wide range of functions including the out-of-sessions work of justices (attestation and issuance of documents; issuance of summonses; authorization of search and arrest warrants; granting, fixing, and admitting to bail). Available at any time of day or night, these lay magistrates also do a considerable amount of work in handling committals for trial, and in hearing summarily-triable offenses. They constitute a lay bench that can handle cases which do not go before a jury. Improvements in the formal training of justices of the peace should be made through basic and advanced courses, at Melbourne and Monarch Universities, and the use and powers of lay magistrates should gradually be increased. The present Australian trend to appoint stipendiaries should be reversed, otherwise the Australian criminal justice system will be served entirely by a public service bench.