Judges are wise, but they need to be savvy too

For those so skilled at choosing words wisely, some judges have an unfortunate knack of putting their foot in it. There is a naivety with regard to the media, especially in these modern times when there are few hiding places. Every word has potential to grab a headline.

Our judges may be honest, earnest and wise - but they are not always savvy.

Skeleton arguments

Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, addressed the annual conference of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, perhaps not expecting his words to carry to these shores.

While referring to the onerous burden of reading papers in preparation for a hearing, he divided judges into two categories: Pre-Raphaelites and Impressionists.

Pre-Raphaelites read everything and are better prepared to ask relevant questions, whereas Impressionists read very little, often just "skimming the skeleton arguments", Lord Neuberger asserted.

Documents can turn out to be irrelevant, rendering a Pre-Raphaelite's dedication a waste of time. Meanwhile, Impressionists run the risk of "not really being on top of things until after the hearing... and intelligent questions sometimes only rise into the consciousness when it's too late to raise them".

It confirmed what many legal professionals, experienced in dealing with judges, have long suspected.

Of course his comparative analysis begged an obvious question: which are you, Lord Neuberger? He confessed to being an Impressionist - a skimmer. Judges themselves will have pondered which label best suits their style.

Advocates complying with the rigid schedules and requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules who fastidiously package up trial bundles may be surprised by the revelations from within the judiciary. We like to think that our efforts to bring greater efficiency to the courts are appreciated.

The question so frequently put: "Has your honour had the opportunity to read the papers?" is so often met with an expression of regret, mention made of the pressure on judicial time and the poor advocate is invariably obliged to open his or her case at some length. So much for curtailing speeches and saving court resources.

Basic expectation

The growing numbers of litigants in person may also be crestfallen by Lord Neuberger's comments if his claims extend to all courts. The public may consider the proper study of pre-hearing bundles by a judge as a basic expectation and failure to do so as being nonchalant.

The previous judge to grab the headlines for the wrong reason was Judge Graham White in early August. He apologised for comments inadvertently overheard by Peter and Geraldine McGinty who had delivered a victim impact statement via video link as part of a Parole Board hearing for the killers of their son Colin.

The fatal stabbing of 21-year-old Colin McGinty in Bootle, north Merseyside, 13 years ago was a gruesome case of mistaken identity.

Peter and Geraldine described to Judge White how the killing has imposed a "life sentence of heartache, grief and pain" on them and their family. Moments later the judge was heard by the McGintys to say in a private conversation picked up by the microphone: "I feel so very sorry for these families. They make these statements thinking they are going to make a difference, but they make no difference at all. Someone should tell them."

Lord Neuberger and Judge White both showed commendable honesty; but they arguably lacked a common touch. Had they been more savvy the comments would either not have been made or they would have been made in a safe arena.

Of course, our judges have long been accused of being out of touch. Who can forget Mr Justice Harman who in 1990 appeared not to have heard of footballer Paul 'Gazza' Gascoigne. And, there was Judge Francis Aglionby who in 1999 stopped a case about the theft of a toy and asked: "What is a Teletubby?"

At the other end of the judicial spectrum was the late Judge Pickles, the self-proclaimed 'human face of the judiciary', who spoke out about his senior colleagues including Lord Hailsham who he famously described as "an arrogant, pompous, toffee-nosed Old Etonian". Pickles was arguably in touch with real people, but he was also a PR cluster bomb.

Every society must have faith in its judges. We place our reputations, our livelihoods and, sometimes, our liberty, in their hands. Traditional qualities for a judge must be supplemented with an ability to cope with the modern world. A touch of PR awareness and being savvy of technology and the media are now essential qualities.