Report comment

What stopped Truss saying what the Attorney General - the government's senior legal advisor - saying what he said? If, like Dominic Grieve, he's sacked, we will know why.

As to public scrutiny, aside from crime - attendance small or students (great fun talking to them) - I can recall in 26 years of DJ and recorder judging only once an attendance of the public en masse. It involved the revenue's attempt to dissolve a local soccer team. The team invited me to adjourn so the problem could be resolved. The revenue agreed. Phew. So I did. Problem solved and so was the debt.

Judges are subject to public scrutiny. Except in a small minority of cases, the public and the press can attend all trials. Judgments have to be explained - often difficult at the end of a 15 minute possession warrant hearing - and are subject to an often more leisurely appeal.

I believe - after my appointment tap - that the appointment process now is rigourous. And possibly, say its detractors, PC. I've no idea. But there is a process.

Are we to have parliamentary or other scrutiny of all/some appointments. Will some/more judicial function be hived off to officials as non-judicial? And if the party in power has a large majority, then . . . . .?

There are vacancies on the US Supreme Court, tomorrow's winner will try and fill them. It is suggested that this may change the constitutional landscape for a generation. Good idea - I don't know?