If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want?
Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings.
Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time
Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
No, she's a Judge. A Magistrate is a lay person as you say, but she's a district judge. It's just that the particular kind of judge she is has the word "Magistrate" in the full title.
She is (or was at the last time they updated their lists) a "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" which means ordinarily (this case is anything but ordinary) she would not be assigned to a Crown Court but would work alongside Magistrates in their court. Unlike them she can sit on her own (as she does here) deciding things for herself.
It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate?
It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
Ordinary criminal cases in England split into two categories which overlap to produce a third. The first category is "Summary offences" like maybe you stole merchandise from a shop or you punched somebody in a bar fight but there was no lasting harm done. These are heard by Magistrates, who are just lay people who volunteered and are "of good character" - it's usually like teachers and bank managers and people like that - with no jury, the magistrates are restricted in what sentences they can possibly order, and an actual lawyer sits with them to explain any details of law.
At the other extreme there are "Indictable offences" like murder or rape. These are heard by a Judge and jury, guilt is decided by the jury and the sentence is only limited constitutionally (e.g. "life without possibility of parole" is prohibited as a sentence for any crime, except that it can be imposed for multiple independently conceived crimes of murder)
In the middle is an overlap "Tried either way". This means the Prosecutors can decide e.g. "This was very serious, we need a Judge to impose the harsh sentence we'll request" or "This seems pretty routine, let magistrates handle it". If the magistrates disagree (they meet only as panels of three) they can send the case to a judge for a harsher sentence whereas a judge doesn't need to send cases down to magistrates they can just impose a lesser sentence themselves.
Comments
Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings.
Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time
Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
No, she's a Judge. A Magistrate is a lay person as you say, but she's a district judge. It's just that the particular kind of judge she is has the word "Magistrate" in the full title.
She is (or was at the last time they updated their lists) a "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" which means ordinarily (this case is anything but ordinary) she would not be assigned to a Crown Court but would work alongside Magistrates in their court. Unlike them she can sit on her own (as she does here) deciding things for herself.
It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate?
It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
IANAL, but I believe that most cases start in a Magistrates, and are then escalated if required (or appealed).
Ordinary criminal cases in England split into two categories which overlap to produce a third. The first category is "Summary offences" like maybe you stole merchandise from a shop or you punched somebody in a bar fight but there was no lasting harm done. These are heard by Magistrates, who are just lay people who volunteered and are "of good character" - it's usually like teachers and bank managers and people like that - with no jury, the magistrates are restricted in what sentences they can possibly order, and an actual lawyer sits with them to explain any details of law.
At the other extreme there are "Indictable offences" like murder or rape. These are heard by a Judge and jury, guilt is decided by the jury and the sentence is only limited constitutionally (e.g. "life without possibility of parole" is prohibited as a sentence for any crime, except that it can be imposed for multiple independently conceived crimes of murder)
In the middle is an overlap "Tried either way". This means the Prosecutors can decide e.g. "This was very serious, we need a Judge to impose the harsh sentence we'll request" or "This seems pretty routine, let magistrates handle it". If the magistrates disagree (they meet only as panels of three) they can send the case to a judge for a harsher sentence whereas a judge doesn't need to send cases down to magistrates they can just impose a lesser sentence themselves.