What really goes on in the Supreme Court

15 December 2013 by

9781849463836On 9 December 2013, Professor Paterson launched his new book, Final Judgment (Hart Publishing, absolutely no relation), via the Second annual Bailii lecture, Decision-making in the UK’s top court – read lecture here, order book here (£21.25, Amazon) or direct from the publishers at £20 here (reference ‘PATERSON’ to get the further discount)

The lecture summarises a wise, perceptive, and at times funny work of scholarship, and this post is an unashamed plea that you read the book as well as the lecture.

The book is based upon over 100 interviews with Law Lords, Justices and counsel. Paterson is particularly well-placed, having carried out a review in the 1970s with 15 then current or former Law Lords and 46 counsel. He has also looked at the judicial notebooks of two of the outstanding leaders of the judicial House of Lords, namely Lord Reid in the 1960s and 1970s, and Lord Bingham in the 2000s. These notebooks contain not only records of counsel’s arguments, but also details of what the Law Lords or Justices thought at the end of the “first conference” held immediately after the oral hearing. And the revelation was that in many important cases the judges’ view shifted between that conference and the ultimate decision, often with a critical impact on the outcome. One of the particular interests of the book is to follow through the big cases of the last years, and see how the judges ended up where they did.

Paterson’s underlying theme is a simple one. Appellate decision-making in the UK’s top court is a social and collective process. The best way to understand it

is not through reductionist theories based on economics, power or attitudes, but by looking at dialogues in which the judges engage – with counsel, with other courts, with academics, with the other branches of the state and above all with themselves.

And what the Supreme Court has added in the 4 years of its existence is the beginning of another dialogue, that with the public, helped by its sophisticated communications office, case summaries, and televising of hearings.

At pp.222-233, there is an excellent summary of the dialogue between the Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court, which is worthy of a number of posts in itself.

Returning to the process of decision-making, Paterson found many of the judges to be disarmingly frank. Have a look at a couple of instances in the lecture of judges changing their minds: Twinsectra/Barlow Clowes and key causation cases such as Fairchild to Barker), found under “Vote switching”  – Lord Rodger catching the flu seems to have disrupted the dynamics of decision-making in Barker.  Others will be interested in the process (p.184 of the book) whereby in the Prolife case (BBC censoring pictures of aborted foetuses) things started with a tentative 4-1 in favour of Prolife, but ended up 4-1 in favour of the BBC, or Chester v. Afshar (p.188, causation about a surgeon’s failure to warn) where there was a lot of changes of mind.

More substantively, a number of judges were not shy about saying that they decided what the answer should be in a case and then reasoned backwards from this point (p.197) but Lord Sumption explains the limits of this process.

If you start with the answer and work backwards it is very important to know when to recognise defeat. Some of us never recognise defeat, and some of us give up at the first problem, though not many. I think the ideal is to penetrate some way down the road and when you find that you can’t in any intellectually honest way get to where you thought you ought to be going, you change your mind.

The book is fascinating on the oral process before the Court. Questions for the advocates are not only designed to probe their argument but also aimed at enabling the questioning Justice to make his point with other members of the court. Barristers limbering up for an outing in the Supreme Court, or indeed in any appellate court, would do well to compare notes with p.41-62 about the dialogue process, dialogue being the operative phrase rather than the sequential monologues which occur more often in first instance courts. They might however be wary of following the example on p.34 where in, I think,  the 1920s or 1930s, Lord Buckmaster asked counsel

“how long this nonsense is going to continue”.

Response: “about ten days, if interruptions continue on their present scale, and a few days less if they diminish”.

The House did not take the hint, and subsequently counsel (DN Pritt QC – later to defend Ho Chi Minh and Jomo Kenyatta, but that is another story) was driven to slam a book down on the lectern and shout “YOUR LORDSHIPS ARE GOING TO HEAR THIS APPEAL.”

As Paterson observes,

They did. Pritt won.

Whilst today’s Supreme Court is far from being a respecter of sloppy advocates, its manners have improved somewhat since the heavy brigade of the 1980s, particularly Lords Bridge, Brandon and Templeman (the last known as Sid Vicious at the Bar). On one occasion, after leading counsel had been given a real pummelling by all three bruisers, his junior was asked whether he wished to add anything. His reply was short:

Not without a helmet.

I am happy to say that on my only outing before Lord Templeman we were on the right side of the argument.

The book gives one a strong sense of the personalities of the Law Lords and Justices, and how they operate between themselves when reaching decisions. Lord Sumption suggests that appellate judges can be divided into “parsons”, who look at issues in moral terms, “pragmatic realists” who have an eye to consequences, and “analysts” who focus relentlessly on legal principle. Paterson describes Lord Browne-Wilkinson as a “parson” in these terms, and Lord Hoffman as a “pragmatic realist.” p.180 recounts how over a 3 month period the realist won the parson round in the Argyll Supermarket case.

One important debate, well covered in the lecture and the book, goes to the pros and cons of the Court giving a single majority judgment, with a strong move in the current court in that direction. Paterson identifies the potential dangers of this; longer single judgments, the possibility of reinforcing existing tensions, the loss of individual expression in the more committee-style single judgment, and the domination of the judgment writing process by a few members of the Court.

I wonder whether these dangers are worth running to achieve the dwindling down of multiple concurring judgments, which then got analysed endlessly in the courts below, before some consensus formed as to what they meant. The worst example of this was in Kay (the human right/possession order case) involving six concurring speeches, which Lord Carnwath (then in the CA) had to apply. As he told Paterson

he had spent a weekend wrestling with a piece of self-assembly furniture – until he realised that IKEA had given him the wrong instructions leaflet. The problem with the House of Lords [in Kay] was that they had given him six separate sets of instructions for the same case.

To conclude, there is a huge amount of interest in this book for anyone interested in the judicial process. It is far from reverential, and the reader will come away with a much better idea of how judges at the top of the tree really make their decisions.

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

Related posts:


  1. Undoubtably a worthy sequel to ‘The Law Lords’ Patterson, A (1982) Reprinted 1982, ’83, ’84.

  2. George says:

    I wonder if the judges in the Supreme Court have one eye on a filtering process of preventing cases going to the European Court of Human Rights by leaning towards human rights considerations or whether they are a more considerative court that replaces the house of Lords with its long winded but thorough analysis of the background laws.
    Perhaps these two opposing considerations produce more robust judgments.

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: