,
19 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
At Middle Temple for the recording of the first of Jonathan Sumption’s Reith Lectures. No tweeting until after it finishes! 8:15 
A few quick thoughts on tonight’s first Reith Lecture by Lord Jonathan Sumption, former Supreme Court Justice and critic of the expanded role of judges in our democratic system.
I’ll be honest, I thought it was a bit of a damp squib.
I’ll be honest, I thought it was a bit of a damp squib.
Middle Temple Hall was filled with legal luminaries, including a number of former Supreme Court Presidents, Lord Chief Justices and sitting judges. I was expecting Sumption to at least be controversial.
But all he really did was introduce his lecture series - but in a way that left the more controversial bits, where he clearly is going to suggest that judges have ben given too much power which should be left for politicians, to later.
But the really disappointing bit was that when he was challenged on why he believes the power of judges should be curtailed, he answered that he hadn’t expressed that view. I’m just describing, not prescribing, he didn’t quite say but that was the gist.
I thought that was a little disingenuous to be honest. There were a few interesting questions about if the expansion of the role of judges (e.g. Human Rights Act) had most helped minorities and the powerless to advance. He basically said yes, that’s right! And left the question.
He paid lip-service to a few right wing hobby horses such as the apparent enthusiasm of "young people" to censor each other's views, but never really went anywhere interesting or sophisticated with his analysis
He got bit grumpy with @HelenaKennedyQC for suggesting he sounded quite nostalgic for the old days when judges played less of a role in the political sphere. He just said he wasn't nostalgic. Who knows where his next lectures will go.
He was asked by the BBC interviewer why he had been coy on his own views on issues even during the Q&A. That prompted his response to the assisted suicide question, which I thought was more exposing of his own argument that he realised
What he said was that some “courageous” (I think that was the word he used) people will break the law but most won’t, and that’s a messy but good compromise. But that is not a morally neutral position…
… because not everyone is as equal as everyone else when breaking the law. For some people, with access to expensive lawyers and social connections, breaking the law might be seen as a courageous and minimally risky act. But for others, not so much.
Anyway, there are a number of further lectures to come and hopefully they will be more meaty, but this one was not particularly interesting. Sorry!
You can make up your own minds when it was broadcast but what I thought didn't work was that in the Q&A he answered questions not generously but as if batting off impudent interventions from a judge in court
My concern is that he is going to use his lecture series to bash the Human Rights Act and the general increase in the means by which the citizen can challenge the state. The BBC have given him a 4-lecture platform to do it. So I'm nervous.
He's entitled to his view but I am not sure that it is going to be the vital contribution to the national debate which the BBC hope it will be (the presenter opened by saying how 'timely' it is). More a platform for a particularly anti-human rights law perspective
One thing which sort of made me sympathetic to his viewpoint - sitting in the Middle Temple Hall, surrounded by pomp and old white male judges, and listening to one, it possibly right that the court system is unsuited to act act in the vital constitutional role it now holds...
What I mean by that is that an ordinary member of the public would probably be horrified to think that that room represented the system that was deciding vital issues about everyday life in the UK.
That said, it wasn't really a representative sample of the judiciary.
That said, it wasn't really a representative sample of the judiciary.
There will always be a place for conservative judges - but they need to be balanced by less conservative ones.
And people should be wary of socially conservative judges bearing gifts of 'more politics less law'!
And people should be wary of socially conservative judges bearing gifts of 'more politics less law'!
Thanks to @WomaninHavana who I had a nice chat with in the tube station on the way home. She made the point to me about differing access to the law for 'courageous' people so that's hers (-:
