I saw you had done something, but I deliberately did not read it before I blogged, as I wanted to ensure I did not appropriate some good point of yours! And yes: that carpet.
For your Hale and Sumption, I will give you Denning and Hoffmann, both of whom predate the Supreme Court. I agree that a judge should be judged by their judging. And in the medium to longer term, all these judges will be assessed by their judgments.
A more interesting point, perhaps, is the increasing emphasis the UKSC put on publishing lectures and other extra-judicial contributions by the judges. Here one can get a sense of the court (or members of the court) advertising general small-p policy to other courts and practitioners.
I agree entirely on your last point. However, it’s the one where I feel they are also most likely to get into trouble.
Summaries and tv broadcasts of the court are clearly a good innovation and aid also transparency. Frequent extrajudicial speeches perhaps less advisable.
I sometimes think an unfriendly commentator could make make trouble with some of those speeches and lectures, if they were read. But there is safety in tucking things away in speeches which will not be summarised or briefed..!
On yr last point: if retired judges won't exercise a self-denying ordinanance as to their former job should such not be part of their contract. I've just read 6000 words by a former President of the Family Division on open justice (what he calls 'transparency') and reform of contempt laws. I wonder what his successor and the civil servants who worked under him think?
I like the carpet. If Sir Peter Blake was good enough for Sgt. Pepper, he was surely good enough for the Supreme Court. I would have made the four emblems a bit bigger but that was probably out of his hands.
As one David to another: 20 yrs ago I sat for a few years on a 20 person (+/-) committee of whom half were male; and four of us males were called 'David'. Could anyone call us by our surname to avoid four heads looking up questioningly when someone wanted the attention of 'David'? No.
Bristol's old magistrates' court (c late 1800s) was replaced by a much newer version in the early days of my practising career. It achieved in c 1975 a form of higher courts promotion. It became a court mostly used for a Crown Court and occasional other circuit judge hearings. The central area and three court rooms retained their lugubrious air. I did not again go down into the cells as I once used to do. I do not know if they retained their echo and their special disinfectant smell.
Bristol Mags did not even approximately approached the giddy promotion Middlesex Guildhall.
I see you share my view on the carpet?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-uk-supreme-court-been-a-success/
I wonder what you make of the extent to which both Hale and Sumption became ‘personalities’? Personally, I thought it rather unwise.
I saw you had done something, but I deliberately did not read it before I blogged, as I wanted to ensure I did not appropriate some good point of yours! And yes: that carpet.
For your Hale and Sumption, I will give you Denning and Hoffmann, both of whom predate the Supreme Court. I agree that a judge should be judged by their judging. And in the medium to longer term, all these judges will be assessed by their judgments.
A more interesting point, perhaps, is the increasing emphasis the UKSC put on publishing lectures and other extra-judicial contributions by the judges. Here one can get a sense of the court (or members of the court) advertising general small-p policy to other courts and practitioners.
I agree entirely on your last point. However, it’s the one where I feel they are also most likely to get into trouble.
Summaries and tv broadcasts of the court are clearly a good innovation and aid also transparency. Frequent extrajudicial speeches perhaps less advisable.
I sometimes think an unfriendly commentator could make make trouble with some of those speeches and lectures, if they were read. But there is safety in tucking things away in speeches which will not be summarised or briefed..!
On yr last point: if retired judges won't exercise a self-denying ordinanance as to their former job should such not be part of their contract. I've just read 6000 words by a former President of the Family Division on open justice (what he calls 'transparency') and reform of contempt laws. I wonder what his successor and the civil servants who worked under him think?
I like the carpet. If Sir Peter Blake was good enough for Sgt. Pepper, he was surely good enough for the Supreme Court. I would have made the four emblems a bit bigger but that was probably out of his hands.
Did Sir Peter Blake really design the carpet? If he did perhaps he could tell the lawyers to stick to the law and let him get on with his craft?
As one David to another: 20 yrs ago I sat for a few years on a 20 person (+/-) committee of whom half were male; and four of us males were called 'David'. Could anyone call us by our surname to avoid four heads looking up questioningly when someone wanted the attention of 'David'? No.
Bristol's old magistrates' court (c late 1800s) was replaced by a much newer version in the early days of my practising career. It achieved in c 1975 a form of higher courts promotion. It became a court mostly used for a Crown Court and occasional other circuit judge hearings. The central area and three court rooms retained their lugubrious air. I did not again go down into the cells as I once used to do. I do not know if they retained their echo and their special disinfectant smell.
Bristol Mags did not even approximately approached the giddy promotion Middlesex Guildhall.