So the real victory was the Daily Mirror's, and only the twisted process of the appellate system gave the final decision to the model. I have some sympathy with the first point; as I have often pointed out, a 3-2 decision in the House of Lords is unsatisfactory for the reason that it is often only too easy to say: "If only B had been on the panel instead of C, the decision would have gone the other way." Such a lottery element diminishes as more judges sit on a case. In the US, all nine supreme court justices hear every appeal. There is no "if only" there.
The other point is inevitable under our two-tier appeal system (which few other countries in the world have). While it is true that some of our court of appeal judges are just as good as some of the law lords, it doesn't follow that the appeal judges generally are of the same calibre. It is still mostly true that the law lords are promoted from the cream of the court of appeal and, as a body, are therefore a cut above the generality of appeal judges. I suppose we could inaugurate a "weighting" system, whereby, say, the experienced Lords Hoffmann and Nicholls were worth 12 points each and the newly appointed law lords (Lady Hale and Lord Carswell) only six. Lord Hope would come in at 10. So the Mirror wins by 24 points to 22. No, I'm not serious.
· It's all becoming a little silly, and it's not doing the reputation of the law lords any good. "Where will the supreme court be housed?" is a game getting out of hand. The issue is important, but the way it is being handled and presented makes it seem like a squabble between petulant children. What has aroused my impatience is the latest instalment in the Middlesex Guildhall saga.
That listed building, on Parliament Square, fulfils many of the criteria for a supreme court - it is imposing and pretty, it is already a courthouse, and it is absolutely in the right place, constitutionally - very near, but separate from and not inside, the Houses of Parliament.
A couple of weeks ago, the 12 law lords visited the place, and last week they rejected it as being "wholly inappropriate". Their reasons are not wholly convincing. For one, they quite understandably want the judges to be at the same level as everyone else in the courtroom, to preserve the informal seminar-type atmosphere of the present sittings, whereas the Middlesex Guildhall court still has the old-fashioned platform, with the judges sitting high above the arena. It is claimed that English Heritage wouldn't allow such alterations to the courtroom. I bet it will, if the government wants it and pressure is applied.
Another defect, say the law lords, is that the building is unwelcoming, parts of it dark and forbidding. It's amazing what you can do with lighting and design these days. I'm not saying that the law lords's objections are footling or irrelevant. I know them to be sincere and well-intentioned. But there is a battle in the background between those who want to stay where they are, and those who want to move, of whom some are choosier than others.
The trouble is that this continuing dispute over accommodation suggests to the outside world that the top judges of the land are more concerned with their own comforts than with the important constitutional advances that creating a new supreme court would bring. This is not good public relations.
· A pattern is emerging. Over the past few weeks, I have placed our money on racehorses called Attorney, Attorney General, Court of Justice and Court of Appeal. I have consistently lost (except once, I think) on the first two, but my pockets have been amply replenished by the other two, including Court Of Appeal's win on Friday at odds of 11 to 2.
So is this a message that horses connected with lawyers or the law officers are to be avoided whereas judge-linked ones deserve our support? I need more evidence.
