Before deciding, I think you should consider the facts discussed below.

It may be also helpful if you search Kudoz questions including the words ¡§magistrate¡¨ and ¡§summary court¡¨.

Best regards,
Manuel
.-----------

1) MAGISTRATE
According to Gardner¡¦s Diccionary of Modern Legal Usage, a ¡§magistrate is a judicial officer with strictly limited jurisdiction and authority, often in local level (¡K).¡¨ [Bryan Gardner: ¡§A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage¡¨, Second Edition, ISBN 0-19-507769-5];

See also:
Magistrate: Another name for a Justice of the Peace.
Justice of the Peace: Also known as a JP and a magistrate. They heard criminal complaints brought to them by victims and constables, and decided how suspects should be treated - indicted or released. They also acted as judges at the Sessions.
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/glossary.html

2) MAGISTRADO
In Spanish, ¡§magistrado¡¨ means ¡§judge¡¨, but the term is preferably used to refer to judges sitting on the highest level of a jurisdiction, who are almost never called jueces; this definition and usage corresponds exactly to the use of ¡§Justice¡¨ in English. Mainly as a token of respect, any judge of any level may be called magistrado. As far as know, lower court judges are seldom (never?) called ¡§justices¡¨ in English;


3) THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES BILL 1999 (Australia):

The Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 (the Bill) establishes a lower level federal court-to be called the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Magistrates Service.

The Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Consequentials Bill can be seen, in part, as an attempt to divert to Federal Magistrates Court some of the human rights caseload which, as a result of the decision in Brandy, must be determined by the Federal Court.
(¡K)
In November 1995, the Joint Select Committee produced its report Funding and Administration of the Family Court of Australia. The Joint Select Committee recommended that specialist State Magistrates be trained in and appointed to hear family law matters particularly in outer suburban, provincial and rural areas. It also said that these Magistrates should have direct access to the Family Court of Australia for advice and research assistance and to the Court Counselling service. For the future, the Committee said consideration should be given to making the Family Court of Australia a division of the Federal Court and to establishing a Federal Magistracy.(25)
(¡K)
In February of the same year, the Family Law Council responded to the options paper and re-stated its view that federal family law magistrates were needed. In particular, it reportedly supported specialist training for family law magistrates rather than the use of multi-skilled magistrates and re-iterated that family law magistrates should be part of the Family Court. Magistrates would thereby have access to the Family Court's facilities, workload and priorities would be determined by the Family Court, and the magistrates would share the Family Court's vision and objectives.(31)
(¡K)
With a less formal judicial culture and more streamlined procedures than those of the existing federal courts, a magistracy would also reduce costs for litigants because:
„X solicitors' expenses would be reduced;
„X barristers are less likely to be briefed;
„X reduced waiting times would lessen legal costs and costs incurred by litigants through lost time and wages;
„X the magistracy would have a fixed costs regime which would mean more certainty as to the costs of litigation and would be welcomed by the parties, including small business, who are not as well resourced as others; and
„X access to magistrates in regional areas would reduce litigants' travel and associated expenses.
Constitutional power to create a federal magistracy
In 1990, the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General made the following statement about the creation of a family court magistracy:
[The Constitution] lays down mandatory requirements for the appointment, removal and remuneration of the justices of federal courts which have their roots in the prescription for judicial independence contained in the Act of Settlement of 1770. This assumption that a federal court will be comprised of Justices has traditionally been interpreted as preventing both the establishment of a Family Court Magistracy and the exercise of judicial power by inferior courts.(46)
However, in advice referred to by the Family Law Council in its 1995 report on Magistrates in Family Law, the Solicitor-General said there was no reason why Parliament could not legislate for a class of Chapter III judges to be known by a title other than 'judge' or 'justice'.(47) This view is presumably based on the idea that it is the functions and incidents of office and not the label given to a judicial officer which is determinative.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1999-2000/2000BD059.ht...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr 9 mins (2004-09-21 13:06:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I don’t know what happened with these signs, I wrote:
It may be also helpful if you search Kudoz questions including the words *magistrate* and *summary court*.