UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts?

7 February 2012 by

The UK Supreme Court began tweeting yesterday as @UKSupremeCourt to deserved international fanfare. Some even speculated that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition fate could now be revealed on Twitter.

The court is already being followed by almost 4,000 Twitter users (for the uninitiated, that is a lot) and has already beaten its own Twitter policy’s prediction of “2-3 tweets a week” with eight on its first day. The eventful debut tweets included seven live updates on the swearing-in ceremony of the court’s newest Justice, Lord Reed, and one relenting to Twitter user @FOImanUK‘s valid point that contrary to the court’s stated policy, it should be possible to put freedom of information requests to the court via Twitter.

This is all excellent news. The UK’s newest and highest appeal court is now setting the international standard for open justice, with its splendid press summaries of judgments, live transmission of hearings online (today’s is a very interesting case about the state’s financial responsibility towards disable people), accessible court facilities and generally public-facing approach. This is also as it should be: the Court has a statutory duty to be “accessible”. But the Supreme Court, which is largely independent from the rest of the court system, is now streaking ahead of it in terms of access to justice. And this open justice gap is becoming a problem.

For the relatively few rulings emerging from and hearings held at the Supreme Court each year (just over 1 on average per week), the public now has access through a number of different media. But what about decisions of the “lower” courts? These account for the vast majority of rulings in the UK. For very important Court of Appeal and High Court rulings, the Judiciary’s website publishes judgments and, in a very few selected cases, summaries. For those few rulings, the Judiciary’s website also has a Twitter feed, @JudicaryUK.

But this is not enough. The European Court of Human Rights, which releases judgments almost every day, manages to produce press summaries for most of them, and certainly all of the important ones. Its website is not perfect but contains a wealth of statistical and judgment data, including fact sheets about key issues and up-to-date profiles of states which are subject to the courts. This is in direct contrast to the UK court system, which relies on and to an extent funds the fantastic free service BAILII to release judgments, but provides little else.

The Ministry of Justice has said that some hearings of the lower courts will soon be broadcast live. But progress has been slow, such that the BBC, ITN and Sky News wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday urging him to hurry up with the reforms, which will require legislative amendment of the longstanding law banning cameras in court.

It is time for the lower courts to catch up with the Supreme Court. Judgment summaries should be the rule, not the exception. Lord Neuberger, the head of the court of appeal, has publicly supported this idea; the Court of Appeal should lead the way. Like the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal judges have Judicial Assistants who I imagine help with researching cases. They could straightforwardly convert their work into succinct judgment summaries. This would improve public access to court judgments, which are getting longer and longer thanks to the scourge of “copy and paste”. It would also help the press to report judgments accurately when they are released.

And millions of people are now on Twitter. Why not use this medium, which provides direct access to the public without need for the often distorting lens of the media, to explain to people what their courts are doing and how the law is changing? The Supreme Court is leading the way as a modern court, and justice has benefited. Its example should not just be praised by the Ministry of Justice, it should be followed.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. […] interesting post on the UK Human Rights blog the other day looks at the way that the Supreme Court, with its twitter account, summaries of […]

  2. mike farrell says:

    At least I can read the SC tweets. Certainly cant watch supreme court TV which is not iPad friendly, unless anyone knows whether it is broadcast in any alternate and more modern IT friendly location?

  3. In answer to the question in your title, the Scottish judiciary has been tweeting since September 2010: . It has also been publishing some summaries of noteworthy court opinions, with an RSS feed; . See review at . And all Court of Session/High Court opinions have been published for many years at

    More recently, the England and Wales judiciary has also gone on to Twitter at the inaccurately-named!/JudiciaryUK .

  4. Frank Cranmer says:

    If cost is an issue for the MoJ – as it almost certainly is in current economic circumstances – then possibly the single most cost-effective action that the MoJ could take to promote open justice would be to make a modest annual grant-in-aid to BAILII.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: