Judicial Experience, Indeed

Eyebrows have been raised at the elevation of Jonathan Sumption QC to the "Supreme Court", in view of his complete lack of judicial experience. However, anyone who is three fifths of the way through the publication of a five-volume history of the Hundred Years War must be all right, really. And he is in fact a lawyer of the utmost distinction, such as have been raised straight to the highest Bench very occasionally in the past.

Whereas there are those sitting in judgement either at the European Court of Justice or at the European Cort of Human Rights who are merely politicians with decades-old law degrees, or in some cases without even that. Yet the ECHR, at least, dares to threaten to strike down both trial by jury and trial by magistrates on the grounds that jurors and magistrates are not professionals.

Nor, in that sense, are parliamentarians. And no ruling of any of those three bodies - the ECJ, the ECHR, or the "Supreme Court" - should have any effect in the United Kingdom unless and until ratified by a resolution of the House of Commons, itself elected so as better to reflect public opinion, with the general electorate given the decisive say in selectinf party candidates as well as in chooing among them and others. Our true Supreme Court is the High Court of Parliament.

Furthermore, if we must have a "Supreme Court" under that, then its judges, of whom there already have to be 12 including one from each of Scotland and Northern Ireland, should be elected, albeit for life, by each of the 12 areas already used for European Election and certain other purposes, of which areas one is Scotland and another is Northern Ireland.