Report comment

Describing three judges, who were doing their job with litigants whose supporters on both sides are becoming more and hysterical and abusive, as enemies of the people, maligning their backgrounds and in one case referring to his sexuality, would have produced a reply from Lords Chancellor before their office was effectively abolished.

The Lord Chancellor's then role in government was to represent the rule of law and its judicial independence and underpinning. There was no promotion, which is why they were paid a bit more than the prime minister.

Now they are Ministers for Justice and . . . .

Truss could, if she'd meant what she said in her acceptance speech, have expressly deplored the personal abuse and endorsed judicial independence without in any way affecting ongoing litigation.

Her comment expressly shows her disapproval of the judgment by referring to the "intention" to appeal rather than its fact.

May be she wasn't happy about the LCJ's comment about increasing pressure and stress on the judiciary earlier in the week.

The three judges will take the abuse - no choice - and I don't anticipate any fallout as the abuse was post judgment and not in the face of the court. Judges generally though will have lower morale next week.