It was disappointing to read Roger Smith’s rather unforgiving assessment of the recent performance of the US Supreme Court (see [2008] Gazette, 23 October, 10).

Mr Smith singled out the court’s decision in Boumediene v Bush as an example of the court’s ‘illiberalism’, yet this was this same decision that the US government predicted would result in the release of a wave of ‘dangerous detainees’ all over the US.

Mr Smith berates the court for its insularity. But all the court is doing is exhibiting its fidelity to the constitution. The court is severely restricted in entertaining much in the way of example from beyond its national borders. However, it is unarguable that the court is now, more than ever, attuned to the authority of the international community and its law.

In the death penalty case of US v Medellin, decided last July, the international treaty obligations of the US were considered in depth and the minority, in a 5-4 decision, were willing to defer to these obligations, even though there had been no formal ratification by Congress of the treaty in question. This is surely something no English court would entertain without the sanction of Parliament. To see this, one only has to look at last month’s decision in the House of Lords that denied the Chagos islanders any remedy under the ECHR. The leadership of Lord Bingham that Mr Smith so warmly celebrates was distinctly lacking in the Lords on that occasion.

Robert Whitehouse, London.