Magistrate at 19

...and apologies for the terrible grammar in that sentence!

I agree with Mississippi. I know that if I was ever to be hauled up before a magistrate, I'd feel very unhappy and uneasy indeed if it was a teenager still in education. That's not to be dismissive of either teenagers or education. It simply comes down to that 'life experience' thing; the gravitas, as maddan says. This is someone who's 1 year out of school, and who's only just reached the age of majority. Just barely an adult. I wouldn't feel I was being judged by a peer. I'd feel the same if I had to sit before a jury composed entirely of 19 or 20-year-olds. A teenager wanting to be a judge is quite a different thing altogether - in the UK, at least. For one thing, you cannot even be considered for an appointment until you've been a practising lawyer (solicitor or barrister) for at least 10 years, which effectively rules out anyone under 32 or 33. It's also quite laudable, I think, if they want to be a judge rather than just remaining a solicitor or barrister, since judges, highly-paid though they are (even a common old District Judge makes around £100,000 per annum), they could probably still make far, far more in private practice. So perhaps it shows that money isn't the primary motivation. It may, though, also be the power trip! There must be a lot of people who watch Judge Judy and think "Hey, I want to do that!"

Okay, point taken, Rioja. And I agree that many 50-year-olds may not have had the life experiences of many 19-year-olds. By the age of 19, someone may have travelled around the world, learned a language or two, experienced a few different cultures, whereas I know middle-aged people who've barely set foot outside their own home town (not that that means anything: the most brilliant, rational and 'worldly' person I know is in his fifties and has never been abroad). And, of course, many older people are set in their views. We can probably all provide anecdotal evidence to back up these arguments, too. I, for instance, went to uni as a mature student without formal qualifications and was sharing seminars with students of 18 or 19 who had far more extensive educations than I'd had, and who also had 3 or 4 A levels. Yet the differences in the way they performed, as opposed to the mature students, was quite astonishing in many cases. The mature students to a person wanted to learn, had enquiring minds, brought so much more depth into the discussions. A few lecturers made it quite clear that they found mature students hard work - they were more used to dealing with young, impressionable brains. But, like I said - that's anecdotal, and it's generalising. Of course, there are very bright ones. Brightness isn't enough, though. It needs to be honed by some of the difficulties that most of us only experience out in the world as adults: finding work, earning enough, being skint, getting through the difficulties, interacting with others from all age groups and sectors of society. What we're talking about with the magistracy is a serious public appointment, calling for deep knowledge of the law, and for the kind of wisdom and (hopefully) objectivity that can only be found, in my opinion, in a more mature person. The other thing is that magistrates may be making judgments in matters of criminal law that even fall beyond the jurisdiction of a District Judge handling civil and family matters - and the DJ will have been practising law for 10 years at the very least, and will have had the opportunity to build a substantial body of knowledge both of legal practice and human behaviour. It is a huge and demanding responsibility. Too big, I feel, to be dealt with effectively by someone so young. BUT.... maybe I'm entirely wrong. Maybe she'll be an excellent appointee, showing maturity far beyond her years. We'll see.

'Magistrates are usually from a fairly well to do background who don't have that much real life experience' I think I'd strongly dispute that, nobody. You might more realistically say that about High Court Judges and barristers, maybe. But you do make an interesting point about magistrate trials and conviction rates. One ex-magistrate I know was a civil engineer. He became a magistrate in his thirties. He also, being interested in the background of some of the people he was dealing with, took it upon himself to become a prison visitor. He became more interested and, in his 40s, took a degree in social psychology. By the time he'd finished, he'd become so disillusioned with the magistracy - in particular some of the reactionary attitudes he was dealing with (one of his fellow magistrates thought the prison visiting compromised his 'objectivity') - that he resigned from the bench. He now teaches social psychology. I haven't asked him what he thinks about the appointment of Lucy Tate, but I will. As an afterthought, I have to say that the only time I've been up before a magistrate - for trespass during a demo - I was surprised at how fairly I was treated. I pleaded guilty (I had no option) but entered a plea of mitigation. I was not, however, convicted and was only ordered to pay costs of £30.

Agree with you about trashing the Spit, Missi. Shame it wasn't a TR7, really - though same stable, I suppose (or should that be sty?) Nobody - he sat on the bench at Canterbury, where he later taught at the uni.