UK Supreme court

Carawaystick

BBC4 had a program on the court, and followed 4 judges over a while last night. They seemed like a reasonable bunch, and much less stuffy than I expected them to be.

Also
the transcript attached...

Paulw

I watched it last night. They seem like very genuine people, trying to do their best. As they all said, they do get it wrong from time to time, but they try to do what is right, within the law. Sometimes the law doesn't allow them to do what is right.

L1011

Shades of the Not The Nine O Clock News sketch of the prosecution solicitor managing to get the judge to scream "the lady has no alibi" by constant mispronunciation there.

plodder

I notice the Brexit hearings have been on TV, and creating the same un-stuffy impression, with no wigs or other regalia. It would be nice if the Irish Supreme Court could also be televised. I can't think of any reason why not to.

hullaballoo

I find the idea of televising court proceedings utterly crass. It would turn lawyers into "celebrities" and that compromises their capacity to effectually represent their clients' interests and leads to a professional conflict imo.

I feel the same way about media outlets reporting the names of counsel in their Court reports but the egoists amongst us seem happy to have their names printed.

plodder

hullaballoo wrote: »

I find the idea of televising court proceedings utterly crass. It would turn lawyers into "celebrities" and that compromises their capacity to effectually represent their clients' interests and leads to a professional conflict imo.

Even for the supreme court? I imagine there is less grand standing there, and probably less opportunity for acquiring "celebrity" status?

NUTLEY BOY

plodder wrote: »

Even for the supreme court? I imagine there is less grand standing there, and probably less opportunity for acquiring "celebrity" status?

If you want a really good show and loads of solid law - full fancy dress and uber-formality included - see the Court of Appeal of England & Wales in action. Sheer class. So classy in fact that Basil Fawlty would have allowed them in for that famous gourmet evening from which riff-raff were specifically excluded.

hullaballoo

plodder wrote: »

Even for the supreme court? I imagine there is less grand standing there, and probably less opportunity for acquiring "celebrity" status?

The problem is that oratory and rhetoric are important tools for lawyers. Very often this includes humour and other spicy aspects that will grab the headlines in amongst what can often be stiflingly boring proceedings.

These tools have their place but I think in order for Supreme Court proceedings to become "television", there would necessarily be some editorial freedom which would in turn make a circus out of everything and the next thing, the wittiest advocates are all of a sudden at the forefront of the press reports and the minutiae of the legal issues being examined are totally lost.

That is a dark road down which to travel for the profession, overall, imo.

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

The problem is that oratory and rhetoric are important tools for lawyers. Very often this includes humour and other spicy aspects that will grab the headlines in amongst what can often be stiflingly boring proceedings.

These tools have their place but I think in order for Supreme Court proceedings to become "television", there would necessarily be some editorial freedom which would in turn make a circus out of everything and the next thing, the wittiest advocates are all of a sudden at the forefront of the press reports and the minutiae of the legal issues being examined are totally lost.

That is a dark road down which to travel for the profession, overall, imo.

See for example the De Keyser, De Geyser and Der Kaiser discussion and its transfer to HIGNFY etc.

Robbo

Screw editorialising and selecting "juicy" cases. If Joe Public wants his prurient kicks, he can sit through interminable discovery lists and callovers.