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.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: