Today's front pages are dominated by the news that the parents of terminally ill baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal challenge to take their son, who has a rare genetic condition, to the US for experimental treatment. But if you haven't already, I urge you to read Mr Justice Francis's judgment, published following yesterday's hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The judgment is only six pages long but it is remarkably succinct in highlighting the extent to which our judges are now under constant attack.

'Enemies of the people', the Mail declared in November in the most high-profile example, alongside photos of the three judges (including the lord chief justice) who ruled that that the government required parliament's consent before it could trigger Article 50 to exit the EU.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired Court of Appeal judge, this month had to defend his ability to head the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire. 'I can't do more than assure you that I know what it is to be impartial. I've been a judge for 20 years and I give you my word that I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability, and find the facts as I see them from the evidence. That's my job, that's my training and that's what I intend to do,' he felt required to tell residents.

Clarifying the task before him in the Charlie Gard case, Mr Justice Francis said yesterday he 'made it clear that I could only consider the case on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of partially informed or ill-informed opinion, however eminent the source of that opinion. I made it clear that I would always listen carefully to any new and material evidence. The world of social media doubtless has very many benefits but one of its pitfalls, I suggest, is that when cases such as this go viral, the watching world feels entitled to express opinions, whether or not they are evidence-based.

'When I became a judge, I took the same oath that all judges in England and Wales take and I promised to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm. When jurors are sworn-in in criminal trials they promise to try the case according to the evidence. I have at all times endeavoured to remain faithful to that oath, to apply the law having heard and considered the evidence.'

Francis later stressed 'our judges are fiercely independent of the state and make decisions, having heard evidence and having considered the law'.

David Lidington, at his swearing-in ceremony, said he would be 'resolute and unflinching' as lord chancellor in defending the independence of the judiciary. He has a mammoth task on his hands because, somewhere down the line, it has now become acceptable to attack our judges for just doing their job - to uphold the rule of law.