Final Judgment revisited

Alan Paterson


Not many authors have the good fortune to have their work examined by their peers in a special issue of a journal to which they themselves are permitted to contribute. I have been doubly fortunate in the calibre of the commentators and the strength of their contributions. By the time I had completed Final Judgment it was already clear that decision-making in the Supreme Court had departed significantly from the practice in the House of Lords. Teamwork had arrived – evidenced by more meetings before and especially, after, the hearings, and many more exchanges between the Justices. These changes brought unintended consequences: a loss of transparency in the Court, an exacerbation of power differentials between the Justices and ambiguities over the utility of the power to dissent. In this short piece I explore these developments and what has happened in the two years since the manuscript was completed.

Full Text: