This story caught my eye. It seems a bit bonkers really. Though I know the law is changing is respect of standing for election, but it seems you can judge your fellow citizens at 19 but not yet represent them:

New JP, 19, youngest in country: A 19-year-old law student has become the country's youngest magistrate, the government has confirmed.

Fair play to Miss Tate - if you can, do - it just strikes me as odd that you can get selected by a "local advisory committee" but not elected by a plebiscite.

On the subject though of making the bench more representative of the community, I think this is a fudge personally. A year ago I took a friend to his speeding hearing at Rugby magistrates and was sitting there all day waiting for his case to be heard, despite arriving well before the doors even opened as we were advised to do in order to get dealt with early. Apparently, if he had taken a brief along, he would have been seen earlier. Frankly I don't think it's relevant - if they tell you it's first come first served they should stick to that. Just because someone might be paying for representation shouldn't mean the rest of us have to wait all day.

All day there were whole families trooping in and out and hanging around. It was clearly a day out for people who wouldn't or couldn't pay their child support or who had breached their DTTO. It all made me feel that the time and money that processing these sorts of cases through the magistrates courts was certainly not in the community's interest. Most were clearly "regulars". Well known to the court staff and the duty solicitors.