Anyone wanna be a lay magistrate? (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

Daily Mail UK:

Lucy, 19, becomes Britain's youngest magistrate...

A 19-year-old law student has become Britain's youngest magistrate.

But the appointment of Lucy Tate to the bench in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, has attracted criticism from other magistrates who claim her youth and lack of experience make her ill-equipped for the job.

One magistrate, who did not want to be named, said: "It is an absolute folly to have somebody so young making such important decisions. What life experience does she have at 19?'

Miss Tate, who is studying for a law degree at Leeds University, said in a statement yesterday: "I look forward to serving as a magistrate. I have had my first sitting, which was fascinating and am grateful for the training and support which I have received, as all new magistrates do."

She added that she did not see herself as a role model but as someone 'who wants to serve the local community in a useful and positive way'.

On the Friends Reunited website, Miss Tate gives an intriguing insight into her tastes and lifestyle. Her profile includes a photograph of her favourite shoes and matching handbag, which are covered in pink sequins.

Her caption to the picture reads: "This is just my fave pair of shoes and bag (only pic ive got on laptop at mo)."

...

Miss Tate was recruited after a £4 million government advertising campaign two years ago to recruit more young people and ethnic minority candidates to the bench.

Magistrates without legal qualifications deal mainly with minor criminal offences and some family cases - the minimum age was reduced from 27 to 18 in 2004.

 

[hfis]

It's just a matter of time before legal academics give up in frustration and start describing these developments in the law as 'gay'.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

cool.

 

[wheredanton]

um...19 year old? First year law student? They hardly know anything about the law. How many substantive law subjects has she studied?

 

[Frigid]

um...19 year old? First year law student? They hardly know anything about the law. How many substantive law subjects has she studied?

law lawyers & societyhttp://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/courses/2007/LAWS6210.html :rofl:

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

um...19 year old? First year law student? They hardly know anything about the law. How many substantive law subjects has she studied?

who cares? She's a person, she has just as much moral authority to sit in judgement over anyone as that judge does...

 

[Anonymou5]

Making a strong statement in this context and not wishing to be named, spineless...

 

[Frigid]

who cares? She's a person, she has just as much moral authority to sit in judgement over anyone as that judge does...

so the law is about 'moral authority', is it now? assuming without conceding so, then whose morals?

 

[_dhj_]

Elendil why do you always make anti-intellectual posts?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Elendil why do you always make anti-intellectual posts?

lol I don't try to, I just don't agree with the kind of elitism that makes a 19 year old automatically exempt from 'judgedom' just because they are 19. Judges have to follow the law you will say, but they allow their own context, their predjudices, biases whatever to affect the sentencing they hand down...so whilst it is obviously important for them to have legal experience I think common sense and a good conscience are more important.

 

[Frigid]

but they allow their own context, their predjudices, biases whatever to affect the sentencing they hand down...

to what extent? how do you know this?

i don't agree with your statement. this is not about precluding young people for the reason they are young, but rather because there is no substitute for experience, legal or otherwise. it's not elitism, it's 'commonsense'.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Wilst bound by the laws, judges use their own judgement. (lol.)
They have to. It is not possible that they can all be, 100% of the time, completely free from their own personality. It's human nature.


Who decides on the sentence?

The judge or magistrate passes sentence after taking into account the particular circumstances of the case.
...
However, judges and magistrates do not have complete freedom when deciding on sentences. They are bound by the laws, which give guidance on the type of sentence to be passed for particular crimes.

(http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/courts/about/sentencing.htm)

"because there is no substitute for experience, legal or otherwise. it's not elitism, it's 'commonsense'."

God give me strength. Sounds like the same reasons you elect the Pope. "Too old to do much more than dribble onto your holy robe."
Lol sorry, I can understand why you would be concerned about the lack of legal experience but IMO there are more important things. Even for magistrates. And the life experience of a 19 year old shouldn't be scoffed at.

 

[Frigid]

Lol sorry, I can understand why you would be concerned about the lack of legal experience but IMO there are more important things. Even for magistrates. And the life experience of a 19 year old shouldn't be scoffed at.

you have said that one criterion, in this case, is 'moral authority' (which you haven't clearly defined - don't think everyone's morals is the same as yours).

now you have suggested that another criterion is 'life experience' - that Ms Tate or any other 19 year old has life experience that 'shouldn't be scoffed at'.

with all respect due to a person currently undertaking the HSC, and who quotes the law from a queensland government website, that is not, and will never be, the criteria used to select judicial officers.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

you have said that one criterion, in this case, is 'moral authority' (which you haven't clearly defined - don't think everyone's morals is the same as yours).

now you have suggested that another criterion is 'life experience' - that Ms Tate or any other 19 year old has life experience that 'shouldn't be scoffed at'.

with all respect due to a person currently undertaking the HSC, and who quotes the law from a queensland government website, that is not, and will never be, the criteria used to select judicial officers.

I'm not saying that that is how they select judicial officers...(rereads article.)
just the in my opinion, she shouldn't be dismissed because she doesn't major legal experience...and 'moral authority, yes I know not everyone's is the same, I was trying and failing to be ironic...because everyone has morals...everyone has a conscience...she is qualified to handle the legal matters given to her.

she obviously doesn't need too much legal experience or they wouldn't have appointed her, but she is obviously qualified to handle the cases they give her, minor criminal matters and family court.

 

[Frigid]

I'm not saying that that is how they select judicial officers...(rereads article.)
just the in my opinion, she shouldn't be dismissed because she doesn't major legal experience...and 'moral authority, yes I know not everyone's is the same, I was trying and failing to be ironic...because everyone has morals...everyone has a conscience...she is qualified to handle the legal matters given to her.

she obviously doesn't need too much legal experience or they wouldn't have appointed her, but she is obviously qualified to handle the cases they give her, minor criminal matters and family court.

first, be mindful that the article is set in the UK, where they do appoint layhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=layperson magistrates. you can't do that in New South Waleshttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lca1982149/s12.html. so my argument has never been about legal experience.

second, i don't believe we are talking about Ms Tate in particular. we are talking about the suitability of 19 year olds to be magistrates. of course, it is possible for one to become a lawyer at age 19, hence become a magistrate in NSW. but the likelihood of that is about zero (cf with the case of Mr O'Sullivanhttp://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=108372).

notwithstanding all of that, as a matter of generality, to appoint a 19 year old as a lay magistrate, in my opinion, is a 'no so good' thing. she's barely out of high school (and puberty for that matter), has limited 'life experience' (don't bullshit me - she wasn't a teenage mother or anything) and has the same amount of experience in a court as a first year law student.

as to your everybody has 'morals' and a 'conscience', the common law has long settled this rudimentary point.

John Selden - "[If] equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. 'Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot a chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot. 'Tis the same in the chancellor's conscience."

btw, Elendil, i dare you to remember this discussion we've had, come study law for a while, and reflect on your naivete.

 

[turtleface]

u talk like a freaking magistrate frigid lol

i think 19 is too young. studies have shown certain sections of the brain relating to objective reasoning don't develop till mid to late 20s

 

[ur_inner_child]

This part of the article was kinda manipulative of the writers...

On the Friends Reunited website, Miss Tate gives an intriguing insight into her tastes and lifestyle. Her profile includes a photograph of her favourite shoes and matching handbag, which are covered in pink sequins.

Her caption to the picture reads: "This is just my fave pair of shoes and bag (only pic ive got on laptop at mo)."

 

[Frigid]

So a low level barr. from Tasmania has as much chance of being admitted as a NSW supreme court barrister? .. Or by "court of any other state".. do they mean supreme court of any other state...

what's a 'low level barrister'? ^o)

yes, everybody can practise in other states.. the LPA of all States allow for cross-jurisdictional practice.

 

[melsc]

btw, Elendil, i dare you to remember this discussion we've had, come study law for a while, and reflect on your naivete.

I have blocked out any of my comments prior to my law studies *SHUDDERS*, if I were you guys I would have slapped me out!

 

[c_james]

lol I don't try to, I just don't agree with the kind of elitism that makes a 19 year old automatically exempt from 'judgedom' just because they are 19. Judges have to follow the law you will say, but they allow their own context, their predjudices, biases whatever to affect the sentencing they hand down...so whilst it is obviously important for them to have legal experience I think common sense and a good conscience are more important.

What you're referring to is judicial activism, and it's only a good thing in small doses. Yes, judges will inevitably 'make' law as opposed to applying it, but the fact of the matter remains that they can only do this to the extent that the existing common law system allows - they must work within the framework of already established precedents, statutes and principles of law. A 19-year-old lacks a sufficient knowledge of this framework and is susceptible to arbitrary decisionmaking. Even so, magistrates have an almost non-existent capacity to be judicial activists; this role is usually reserved for judges in higher courts dealing with morally sensitive issues and public policy considerations.

Further, I find this whole lay magistrate concept ridiculous.