"NOJUDGMENTNOJUSTICE"

By
LordNeuberger,
PresidentoftheSupremeCourtofU.K.

(1)Introduction1

1.Itisanhonourtohavebeenaskedtodeliverthis,thefirst, annualBailiilecture.Itisalsoa
sourceofpleasurethat,indoingso,IamabletososhowmysupportfortheBritishandIrish
Legal Information Institute (to set out its full, if rarely used, name) and the work it does
providingaccesstojudgments.AccesstoJudgmentscarrieswith it access to law and access to
justice, for lawyers, judges, academicsandlitigants,andallothersinterestedinorconcerned
with anyaspect ofthelaw.Bailii,whichalsogivesaccesstostatutes, providesauniqueand
constitutionallyvital servicefor UKcitizens and others, which as the number of selfrepresented
litigants, as litigantsinperson are now known, inevitably increases, will become even more
important.

2.Judgmentsarethemeansthroughwhichthejudgesaddressthelitigantsandthepublicatlarge,and
explaintheirreasonsforreachingtheirconclusions.Judgesarerequiredtoexercisejudgement
anditisclearthatwithoutsuchjudgementwewouldnothaveajusticesystem worthyofthename
and they give their individual judgement expression through their Judgments. Without
judgementtherewouldbenojustice.AndwithoutJudgmentstherewouldbenojustice,because
decisionswithoutreasonsarecertainlynotjustice:indeed,theyarescarcelydecisionsatall.Itis
thereforeanabsolutenecessitythatJudgmentsarereadilyaccessible.Suchaccessibilityispartand
parcelofwhatitmeansforustoensurethatjusticeisseentobedone,toborrowfromLordHewart
CJ'sfamousphrase2.

3.Withthatinmind,Iwanttofocusontheimportanceoftwofundamentalrequirementsofanyjustice
system worthyofthename,and the role they play in securing effective access to justice.
Those requirementsare(i)judgesgivingpubliclyavailable,reasonedJudgmentsand(ii)thereliable
dissemination and reporting of Judgments. I propose to start by looking at the importance of
Judgmentsthemselves,afterwhichIwilldiscussthenatureandimportanceofdisseminatingand
reporting.

(2)Theimportanceofclearwrittenjudgments

4.MystartingpointisnotaJudgment,butanacademicstudy.As farasIamaware,itisthefirstof
itskind.Atleastthatiswhattheauthor,JosephKimble,claims,andIhavenoreasontodoubthim.

It is an empirical study, which does not break new ground, but rather confirmssomething
which,asitacknowledges,mostjudgesandlawyersalreadysuspected.

5.ThestudyinvolvedsendingtwoversionsofacourtJudgmentto 700randomlyselectedlawyers
whopractisedinandaroundMichigan. One was the original Judgment. The other was a re
writingoftheJudgmentbyJosephKimble.Letmegiveyouaflavourofthetwo versionsby
settingoutthefirstparagraphofeach.

6.TheopeningparagraphofversionAwasasfollows:

'Plaintiff Robert Wills filed a declaratory judgment against defendant State Farm
InsuranceCompanytodeterminewhetherdefendanthasadutytopaybenefitsunder
the uninsured motoristprovisionsfoundinplaintiff'spolicywithdefendant. Pursuant to
theparties'stipulatedstatementoffacts,thetrial courtgrantedsummarydisposition
inplaintiff'sfavoruponfindingcoveragewheregunshotsfiredfromanunidentified
automobilepassingplaintiff'svehiclecausedplaintifftodriveofftheroadandsuffer
injuries.Defendantappealsasofright.Wereverseandremand.3'

TheopeningparagraphofversionBwasasfollows:

'RobertWillswasinjuredwhensomeonedrovebyhimandfired shots toward his car,

causing him to swerve into a tree. He filed adeclaratoryjudgmentactiontodetermine
whetherStateFarmhadtopayhimuninsuredmotoristbenefits.Theissueiswhether there
wasa'substantialphysicalnexus'betweentheunidentifiedcarandWills'scar.Thetrial
court answered yes and granted a summary disposition for Wills. We disagree and
reverse.Wedo notfindasubstantial physical nexusbetweenthetwocars, because
thebulletswerenotprojectedbytheunidentifiedcaritself.'

7. Version A is obscure, hard to follow, ungrammatical in parts, andithasProustianlength

sentences without Proust's literary merit. And it gives you no idea why the court reached the
decisionitdid.Instarkcontrast,versionBisclearandaccessible,withgoodgrammarandclear
style.YouonlyhavetoreadversionBoncetoknowexactlywhatthe claimwasabout,whatthe
resultwas,and,althoughonlyelevenwordslongerthanversionA,itexplainswhythecourtarrived
at its decision. Sadl y, i f unsurpri si ngly (or perhaps I shoul d have said 'sadly
unsurprisingly'?),versionAistherealjudgment,anditwaspickednot becauseitwasespecially
badbutbecauseitwasaverage 4 .VersionBisJosephKimble'srevisedversion.

8.Thefeedbackfromtherespondentlawyerswas,asonewould expect,a'strongpreference'
for the revised version B 5 . The study goes on to outline why respondents preferred one
versionovertheother. Those who preferred version A did so, in the main, because they
considereditbetterorganizedandfounditmorehelpfulbecauseitcited morecases.Thosewho

preferred version B did so primarily because it had a summary at the beginning, left out
unnecessarydetail,andwasmoreconcise6.

9.Thereisnothingsurprisinginanyofthis.Nor,Ithink,didthestudy'sauthorexpecttounearth
any great revelation. There is however real merit in establishing through empirical analysis
whether or not our common sense assumptions are correct. More specifically, there is merit in
identifyingclearlywherejudgesarethoughttogowrongintheir judgmentwritingandwhat
improvementstheycouldmake.

10.Somemightobjectonthegroundthat,fromtheperspectiveofalawyer,judgeoracademic,the
differences between the two versions are neither here nor there. They are all trained to read
judgments,toanalyse them,topickouttheratiofromtheobiterdicta.Thisobjectionmisses
thepointintwoways.First,thefactthatlegalprofessionalsaretrained toreadJudgmentsis
noexcuseforpoorJudgmentwriting.Itislikesuggestingthatstatutesdon'tneedtobewell
drafted because lawyers andjudgesareadeptatinterpretingthem.Thefactthatthesystemcan
rectifyoramelioratedefectsisnoexcuseforhavingthedefectsinthe firstplace.Secondly,
referencetolawyers,judgesandacademicsis myopic.Theyareonlypartoftheaudience.
Perhaps somewhat idealistically, it can be said that they are not even the most important
partoftheaudience.Thepublicaretherealaudience,evenifthepublicseemshappilyindifferent
aboutalmostallcourtJudgments.

11. Judgments must speak as clearly as possible to the public. This is not to suggest that
Judgments could, or even should, aim to be bestsellers.Chancewouldbeafinething.But
everyJudgmentshouldbesufficientlywellwrittentoenableinterestedandreasonablyintelligentnon
lawyers to understand who the parties were, what the case was about, what the disputed
issues were, what decision the judge reached, and why that decision was reached. Non
lawyers may not be able to grasp the finer details of the legal issues, because such
understanding often can only come from many years of legal education and practice. They
shouldhoweverbe abletounderstandwhat the casewas about, eveniftheyareunableto
appreciatealltheintricaciesofthemoreabstruselegalprinciples.

12.Itmightbeaskedwhythisisimportant.Ifthereisnevergoingtobearushofgeneralinterestin
court Judgments, why should judges strive to render their Judgments accessible? There are
two answers to that: one general and one particular. And both these answers rest on our
commitmenttoopenjusticewhichunderpinstheruleoflaw.

13.Theparticularreasonistherighttoafairtrialineachindividual case.Theneed,theduty,to
provide a reasoned Judgment is a wellestablished'functionofdueprocess,andthereforeof
justice. 7AclearlyreasonedJudgmentenablesthelitigantstounderstandwhythecourtarrived
atitsdecision.Asforthegeneralreason,aclearlyreasonedJudgmentenablesthepublicto
understandthelawandtoseewhatisbeingdoneandsaidbythejudgesinthecourts,tosee
how justice is being dispensed. Accordingly publicly pronounced Judgments represent an
i m port ant m eans t hrough whi ch publ i c confi d ence i n, and understandingof,thecourts,
andthereforeintheruleoflaw,canbesecured.

14.Boththegeneralreasonandtheparticularreasonforopenand clearjudgmentsmaybe
highlightedbyreferencetoaparticulartypeoflitiganttheselfrepresentedlitigant,oras
he or she used to be (and still often is) known, the litigantinperson. The Civil Justice
Council recently conducted a comprehensive study concerning access to justice for such
litigants 8 . It is an impressively detailed piece of work, which repays consideration, and I
am glad to say that its recommendations are being taken seriously and, in the main, are
beingimplemented.Fortonight'spurposes,Iwanttofocusononeofitspoints,namely:

'Every informed prediction is that, by reason of the forthcomingreductions

and changes in legal aid, the number of sel fr ep res en ted l i ti gan ts wil l
i n creas e, and on a considerablescale.Suchlitigantswillbetheruleratherthan
theexception.9'

TheReport goeson,amongst otherthings,tonotearesponseit received fromanorganisation,

Help4LIPs.Thatresponsewasasfollows,

"[They]arestartinglitigationwhollyinexperiencedin litigiousmatters....Toofrequently,
duetothisinexperience,[they]arefailingincourt.Thiscanleadtoresentmentand polarisation
ofissuesby[them].Theyfrequentlyfeelthe wholeprocessisagainstthem....[They]needto
recognise at the earliest possible time that the system, the judiciary and the Courts Service
attempttobetransparentlyevenhanded.However[they]alsoneedtorecognisethattheopposition
istaughttobeadversarialino.rdertowin." 10'

15. Those observations underline the need for clearly expressed judgments. Selfrepresented
litigants faced with the opposing party's authorities or looking for authorities to support
their case, need Judgmentswhichtheycanunderstand.Respect for,andconfidencein,the
rule of law will suffer, and understandably suffer, if we judges fail on this score. In some
cases,suchasthoseinvolvingtechnicalitiesof science or technology (as in the Technology
andConstructionorthePatentsCourts),oroffinancialinstruments,companylaworreinsurance
(asintheChanceryDivisionorCommercialCourt),thefactsandfactualissuescannotbeexplained
verysimply.Similarly,someissuesoflawareintricate,complexandhardtoexpresssimply.But
thatisnoexcuseforjudgesnotexpressingthemselvesasclearlyandsimplyaspossible.As the
CJCstatesinitsReport,withthecuttingoflegal aid,wearegoingto seeanincreaseinself
represented litigants ona considerable scale. This represents a good impetus for us judges to
reconsiderthewayinwhichwepresentourJudgments.Anumberofsuggestionsspringtomind.

(3)Twosmallproposalsforimprovingclarityinjudgments

16.ThefirstarisesfromKimble'sstudy,namelythatitisgoodto haveashortsummaryatthe
startofthejudgment.Judgmentsummariesarewellknowntoallofushere:wehavetheminthe
formofheadnotestoreportedjudgments.AnyonelookingthroughtheLawReportscan easily
gainanunderstandingofwhatthecasesareaboutfromtheir headnotes.Butbynomeansall
judgmentsareaccessiblethroughthe professionallypublishedlawreportswithheadnotes,a

pointeasilydemonstratedbyevenonlyacursoryvisittotheBailiiwebsite.

17. Further, many selfrepresented litigants will not have ready accesstotheprofessionally
published law reports, although, if they have access to the web, they can visit the Bailii
website,andtheICLR'sdatabaseofjudgmentsummaries 11 .Thatinitselfisasignificantstep
intherightdirection.Nonetheless,intheabsenceofaJudgmentsummaryProducedbytheICLR,
a selfrepresented litigant is likely to be at a disadvantage. This drawback could be easily
remediedbyeachJudgmentsettingout,initsopeningparagraph,ashortsummary.Itwouldnot
be as long as a law report headnote, or as one of the press summaries prepared by the
SupremeCourt,whicharenotplacedonBailii(althoughitmightbeofbenefitoftheywere).Butit
shouldbesufficienttoenableanonlawyertoknowthefacts,theissues,andhowandwhythey
wereresolved.

18.Asecondsmallchangeworthconsideringwouldbeformorejudgestogivebetterguidanceto
the structure and contents of their longer Judgments. Some judges already provide a clear
framework,sometimeswithatableofcontents,aroadmap,atthebeginning,and oftenwith
appropriateheadings,signposts,throughouttheJudgment. Kimble'sstudyconfirmsthatthis
is not just a good discipline but it is what thelegalprofessionalreaderswant,and,ifitis
what lawyers want, it is a fortiori what nonlawyers will want. A clear structure aids
accessibility.

(4)Twomorecontroversialsuggestionstoimproveclarity

19.Twoothersuggestionsmightnotbeaseasytoachieve,notleast becausetheygotojudicial
selfrestraintandmaybeseenbysometoimpingeonjudicial independence.The concern
here lies with complexity.Particularlyinour,commonlawsystemdependentonthedoctrine
of precedent, it is fundamentally important that Judgments properly explain the law in a
consistentway,andcoherentlydevelopthe lawnotleasttotakeaccount ofsocietal changes.
For both purposes, exposition of the law and development of the law, clear and authoritative
Judgmentsarerequired.

20.Thefirstofthesemorecontroversialsuggestionsisthatjudgescouldtakeamorerigorous
approach to cuttingthe lengthof their Judgments.Iamnottherebysuggestingthatwefollow
theleadofJudgeMurdoch,ajudgeoftheUSTaxCourt.JusticeRoslynAtkinsonoftheSupreme
CourtofQueenslanddescribedanexampleofhisapproach.

'It is reputed that a taxpayer testified, "As God is my judge, Idonotowethis

tax".JudgeMurdochreplied,"Heisnot,Iam;youdo".12'

21.Icannotimaginesuchanapproachevercatchingonhere,norshouldit.Brevityisavirtue,
but,likeallvirtues,itshouldnotbetaken toexcess.Judgesshouldweedouttheotiose.We

should, for instance, remove unnecessary displays of learning 13 , or what the Lord Chief
Justice,LordJudge,recallshishistoryteachermarkingonhisessay, APK,anxiousparadeof
knowledge.Theleadingormajorityjudgment shouldclearlysetouttheratioenablingboth
professional and lay reader to readily discern the reasons for the decision and the relevant
principleorprinciplesoflaw.Nodoubt,lawstudentswouldalsobenefit fromsuchanapproach.
Although perhaps not university examiners who would lose the opportunity to set questions
aroundananalysisofthedifferencesbetweenmultipleappellatejudgmentsallofwhichpurportto
makethesamepointsinslightlydifferentways.

22.Mysecondmorecontroversialsuggestionconcernsconcurring anddissentingJudgments.
TheHonRussellFoxACQC,aformerjudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia,observed,

'Itcanbequiteabusinessarrivingataconclusionastowhatanappellatecourtactually
decided,asamatterofprinciple.Therewilloftenbemorethanonesetofreasons,
and conflicts and differences occur. A minority opinion may contain views
supportingaswellasopposingwhatissaidina majorityopinion.Somecasesdonot
produceabindingprecedentatall...14'

ThesamepointwasmadebyLordCarnwath,whenhewasintheCourt ofAppealinajudgment
ofthecourtofwhichIwasalsoamember 15.Hesaidthis

Before leavingthisappeal we feel itrightto commenton an issueofmoregeneral

concern.WasitnecessaryfortheopinionsoftheHousetohavecometousintheform
of six substantive speeches, which we have had to subject to laborious
comparative analysistoarriveataconclusion? Couldnotasinglemajorityspeech
haveprovided clearand straightforwardguidance,whichwecouldthenhaveapplied
directlytothecasebeforeus?

Iamgladtosaythatwhentheissuewithwhichthecasewasconcernedwasfinallyputtorest,
theSupremeCourt,despitesittingnineJustices, gaveonlyonejudgment. 16 Ifitisdifficultfor
otherseniorjudgesto ascertain the exact ratio of appellate decisions it is not difficult to
imaginetheproblem alawyersittinginherofficeorchambers,letalone alayperson,would
face.

23. I am not suggesting that we should abolish concurring Judgments, let alone
dissentingjudgments.Adissentingjudgment,properlyidentifiedassuch,canbeofimmense
value..Iamsurethefollowingjudicialobservationsoundsfamiliar,

. . whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with

regardtoanotherthateveryoneofordinary sense who did think would at once
"

recognisethatifhedidnotuseordinarycareandskillinhisownconductwith
regardtothosecircumstanceshewouldcausedangerof injurytothepersonor
property of the other, a duty arises to use, ordinary care and skill to avoid such
danger17

MostlawyerswouldguessthatitcomesfromLordAtkin'sfamous judgmentinDonoghuev
Stevenson 18 in1932.ItisactuallytakenfromSirBalliolBrettMR'sdissentingjudgmentinthe
Court of Appeal in Heaven v Pender in 1883. Today's dissent can often be tomorrow's
authority.

24. And concurring judgments, when they agree for different reasons, can also be very
valuable.Particularlyifanappellatecourtisconsideringdevelopingorchangingwhatwasgenerally
thought to be the common law, for instance in relation to the tortious duty of care (as in
Donoghue), it may be too constraining to have one single judgment. In other words, there are
occasionswhenthebenefitofjudicialclarityistrumpedbytheneedforjudicialdialogue.

25.Giventhevaluewhichconcurringanddissentingjudgmentscan haveindevelopingthelaw,
andingivingacademicssomethingtogettheirteethandinsomecasestheirclawsinto,Iam
notsuggestingweshouldmovetoacompulsorysinglejudgmentofthecourt,bereftof character
orimagination.OneonlyhastolookatsomeoftheJudgmentsoftheCJEUinLuxembourgto
seehowcompulsoryunanimitycanresult in decisions which (i) are incomprehensible, (ii)
haveinternallyinconsistentreasoning,(iii)donotanswertheissuethathasbeen r ef e r r ed ,
o r ( i v ) m an ag e t o e nj oy a l l t he se t h r ee r eg r et t ab l e characteristics.(AndintheseEuro
sensitive times, let me add that there are also some very good judgments emanating from
Luxembourg, which are all the more impressive because of the straightjacket imposed by the
requirementofcompulsoryunanimity).

26.However,acompulsorysingleJudgmentinthiscountryisnotquiteasrevolutionaryanideain
this jurisdiction as it may sound: dissenting and concurring judgments are conventionally
excluded in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Nonetheless, in some cases, a single
Judgment,followedbytwoorfour(orevensixoreight)simple agreementsmaygivethe
impressionthatonlyoneofthethreeorfive (sevenornine)judgeshasreallythoughtabout
thecase.Hence,itis thoughtbysomejudges,thebenefitofajudgmentofthecourt"towhichall
membersofthecourthavemade[substantial]contributions".Andsometimeswhenthecourtis
split,thejudgewiththecastingvotefeels thatheorshemustgivereasonsforthebenefitofthe
losingparty.Thesepointsarenotwithoutforce.

27. And individual judges have their own views which have to be respected: judgse are not
automatonsorclones:theyareselectedinordertogivetheirviewsfearlesslyandindependently.A
presidingjudgeorthe head of a court has no right to insist on a colleague not giving a
judgmentornotsayingsomethingheorshewantstosayinajudgment:thatisanimportantaspectof
judicialindependence.Nonethelessselfrestraintisgenerallyajudicialvirtue,and,ifajudgewants
toconcurordissent,theconsequentjudgmentshouldalmostalwaysbeshort.

28.Accordingly,whileIamemphaticallynotsuggestingbanning dissentingjudgments,itmay
bethatwecouldhavefewerofthem,andtheycouldbeshorter.LordAcknerwassupposedto
haveobservedthatoneonlydissentswhenone'ssenseofoutrageatthemajoritydecisionoutweighs
one's natural indolence 1 9 , so it could be said that I am recommending more indolence.
Perhaps a judge who is considering dissenting should ask himself whether (i) he feels
stronglyenough, (ii)thepointisimportantenough,(iii)itwouldhelpthedevelopmentofthelaw,
and(iv)itwouldhelptheunderstandingofthelaw,iftherewas adissentingJudgment.

29.AsforconcurringJudgments,theycan,asIhaveobserved,be usefulinsometypesofcases
e.g. when the law is being taken forward in a difficult area. However, they often risk
introducingconfusionthe concurrer will always use different words from the leader, and
this frequently gives legal practitioners and academics the opening for debating what the
reasoning really was. And a concurring judgment always means that there is more, often
much more, to read before the effect of the decision can be fully appreciated. Basically,
concurring Judgments should only be written where they really add (or, I suppose, subtract)
somethingto(orfrom)theleadingjudgment.Onthewhole, thereismuchtobesaidforgiving
aconcurringjudgmentonlywherethetopicreallywouldbenefitfromjudicialdialogue.

(5)Butdon'tbeunrealisticwhenitcomestoclarity

30.Ireturntotheessentialpoint,namelythatJudgmentsmustbeasaccessibleaspossible,andnotjust
tolawyersbuttothepartiestothe case,tothepublic,andtofuturepotentiallitigants(andtheir
advisers). Our judicial approach to Judgments has historically tended to be one where our
contemplatedreadershipconsistedsolelyofprofessionaland academiclawyersandfellowjudges.
Thefactthatitcruciallyincludesthepartiestothelitigationandfuturelitigants(whowilloftenbe
selfrepresented)and(whentheyarenot)theiradvisers,emphasisestheneed forcourtsatalllevelsto
explainasclearlyandasshortlyaspossible.thefacts,issues,outcomeandreasons.

31.Itisnotrealistictoexpect thateveryJudgmentcouldbe understoodbyeveryone:human

nature,thecomplexitiesofmodernlife,andtheintricaciesofthelawdonotpermitthat.Howeverif
we are to maintainpublicconfidenceinthejusticesystem,judgesmustmaketheir Judgments as
accessibleaspossible,particularlytomembersofthe publicandlitigantsinperson.Thesteps
to increased clarity are not difficult, albeit ingrained habit may take some effort to break,. By
renderingourJudgementsasclear,asaccessible,andascomprehensible, aspossibleweplacethat
whichisofvalueintheminsharperfocus: ratherthandiminishingourJudgments,itwouldenhance
them.

32.SuchchangesareonlypartoftheprocessofensuringthatJudgmentsareproperlyaccessibletothe
widestpossibleaudience.Theotherpartlieswithlayreporting;towhichInowturn.

(6)Twotypesoflawreporting

33. There are two types of law reporting. On the one hand there is what can be described as
Judgmentdissemination:providingthepublicwitheasyandfullaccesstoallJudgments.Thisis
what Bailii does and does so very well. And then there is what can be described as Judgment
enhancement:classicandscholarlylawreporting.Thisiswhatisdonesowellby,preeminently,the
IncorporatedCouncilofLawReportingthroughthetraditionalreports,thatistheOfficialReports(the
LR),the WeeklyLawReports(theWLR),andLexisNexisButterworthsthrough theAllEngland
LawReports(theAllER).

34. Both forms of law reporting, Judgmentdissemination and Judgmentenhancement, are

fundamentallyimportant.Bothsupportthepublicinterestastheyhelpensurethattheadministration
ofjusticeiscarriedoutinpublic.TheydosobecausetheyensurethatJudgments, andthepoints
which they decide, are made available to lawyers, academics,lawstudents,andthepublic.
Thereby,bothformsoflawreportingsupporttheruleoflaw.Judgmentsnotonlypronounceand
developthecommonlaw,theyalsointerpretstatutelawwhether createdby.Parliamentorthe
EUandtheyapplyortakeaccountoftherulingsoftheCJEUinLuxembourgandtheECtHRin
Strasbourg. Ensuring those Judgments are accessible and understandable ensures the law is
accessible.Inademocraticsocietycommittedtotheruleoflawit isessentialthatthatisthecase.
Thetwoformsoflawreportingcarryoutthisfunctionindifferent,complementary,ways.

(7)Scholarlylawreporting,Judgmentenhancement

35.Scholarlylawreporting,judgmentenhancement,isofparticularimportancebecauseoftheroleit
playsindevelopingthecorpusoflaw. Thisisespeciallytrueofthecommonlaw, whichisof
coursejudgemadelaw.Thecommonlawdevelopsgraduallythroughprecedent,whichisofcourse
containedinJudgments,andprecedentisrefinedovertime.Itchangesassocietychanges;principles
areadaptedandapplied.Thecommonlawcouldnotdothiswithoutscholarlylawreporting.It
wouldnot havedeveloped very far if we hadnot movedbeyondthe nominatereportsthose
preparedbetweenthe15thand19thcenturies bynamedindividualbarristersandtheir,atbest,
patchyquality.ChiefJusticeHoltreferringtothenominatereportsoncefamouslywarnedthat

'thesescramblingreports...willmakeus[judges]appear toposterityforaparcelof
blockheads.20'

Themediocreanddifferingqualityoftheseoldlawreportsrisked leavingsocietywiththebelief
thatthequalityofjudges,andhence justice andthelaw itself, wasmediocre. That wouldhave
underminedthedevelopmentofthecommonlaw:howcouldlawyersandjudgeshavedependedonthe
lawifJudgmentswerethemselvesunreliable?How couldthepublichaveorderedtheiraffairs
properlyifthelawwasnotclearfromreportedJudgments?

36.Thegreatbenefitwhichthetraditionallawreports,theOfficial LawReportsfromthe1870s,the
WLRfromthe1950sandtheAllERfromthe1930s,havebroughtisreliabilityasaresultofwhat
thelate muchlamentedLordBinghamdescribedas,'scholarship'and'amazingly highstandardsof
accuracy.21Reliabilityandaccuracyisessential.Butsoisselection.Greatcareandskillisneededin

decidingwhichcasestoreport.

37. Of course, the judicious selection by the traditional law reports is based on the most
important cases across an evergrowing legal terrain, evergrowing in both the number of
judgments and the number of topics. There has been a marked increase in important cases
since 1960. And the last fifty years have seen significant societal, technical and political
developmentsresultingintheexplosionofJR,andthe growthofnewtopicssuchashuman
rights,EUlaw,internetandother ITandelectronicrelatedlaw,andDNAbasedpatentlaw,to
namebuta few.Thisrenderstheselectionofcasesbythetraditionallawreports increasingly
difficult,importantandskilled.

38. The increase in important cases and number of different topics, coupled with two related
developments,namelyincreasedspecialisationamonglawyersandincreasedeaseofpublication
by electronic means, has resulted in the appearance of specialist law reports devoted to
specificareasoflaw.Thereportersworkingforthesespecialistreports have a similar, but byno
meansidentical,roletothatofthetraditionallawreporters.Most,butbynomeansall,oftheir
casesselfselect,but, likethespecialistlawyerstheyserve,thereportersmusthaveamorein
depthappreciationofthespecialistareatheycover,buttheydonotneed suchadeepandwide
appreciationofthelawasthetraditionallawreporters.

39.Iftheselectionofcasesforreporting,whetherbythetraditional, or by the specialist, law

reporters is haphazard, idiosyncratic or arbitrary, the common law will not develop
properly.ThatisbecauseJudgments,whichdevelopthelaworestablishnewprecedents,will
belost.Wherethishappensthelawisdiminishedasistheruleoflaw.A recentinstancewhere
thisoccurredwasnotedbyLordJusticeLloydinSwainMasonvMills&ReeveLLP[2011]1
WLR2735.DiscussinganumberofimportantearlydecisionsontheoperationoftheCPRhe
remarkedthatcounselhadproduced'adecisionoftheCourtofAppeal, powerfullyconstituted
by Lord Bingham LCJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Waller LJ, in Worldwide Corporation Ltd v
GPTLtd,[1998]EWCACiv1894.decidedon2December1998.'It was,hewentonto
conclude,unfortunateandsurprisingthatthiscasefeaturesneitherinany reportnorinthenotesto
theWhiteBook. 22'

40. An important development in the court's approach to the applicationoftheCPRhad

effectivelybeenlost,andthelawanditsdevelopmentwereconsequentlydiminished.Whatis
trueofprocedurallawistrueofsubstantivelaw.Ilearntthisearlyinmycareerin1975, when
I was still a pupil, in a case called Sierex Lid v Ottermill Ltd. The case was argued before
TemplemanJ,who,duringmypupilmaster'sargument,referredtothe"terriblepowerofthe
lawreporters".HewasabitcrossbecausehehadbeenreferredtoareporteddecisionofGoff
j23 on a point which he, Templeman J, had decided differently in a case which had not been
reported.ThereisacertainironyinthefactthathissubsequentdecisioninSierexitselfwasnot
reported and Ican find no traceofitanywhere.Theimportancethenofselectingcasestoreport
properlycannotbeunderestimated.Inacommonlawsystemeffective selectionisasimportantas
accurateandreliablescholarlyreporting.

41.Whereproperselection,accurateandscholarlyreportingis marriedwithawellwritten
headnote and, in the case of the Official Reports, an accurate summary of the advocates'

arguments, scholarly law reporting plays a proper and vital role in the development of the
commonlaw.Itisaskillwhichwecannotaffordtolose.Scholarlylaw reportingnotonlyselects
themostimportantJudgments,butitensuresthattheyareavailableinthemostauthoritativeform,
andprovideswhat onemightcallvitalfurtherinformationthatis,detailswhichareoften of
greatimportanceinfuturecases.Thus,atraditionallawreportwill setoutthehistoryofthe
proceedings,identifythecaseswhichwere cited,andprovideanauthoritativesummaryofthe
decision,writtenbya reporter, expert in the law, in writing and in explaining. In the most
importantcases,thereporterintheOfficialLawReportswillalsosetout theargumentsadvanced
by the advocates, showing how they put their case, what points were taken, and what
concessionsweremade.

42.Itisoneoftheweaknessesofourtimethatnewspapersno longerreportlegalproceedings
asfullyorextensivelyastheyoncedid.Thedaysofthededicatedlegalcorrespondentarebehindus.
Thegrowthoflegalbloggingandtweetinghascomeintoitsowninrecentyears,butfewifany
legalbloggersreportfromcourtaswellorasfullyaspress reportersoncedid.AsasocietyI
thinkweareworseoffasaresultof the decline of media court reporter, but, for today's
purposes,this changeservestoreinforcetheimportanceofretainingskilledand dedicated
lawreporterstoenhancethevalueoftheJudgmentswhichtheyreport.

(8)TheimportanceandchallengesofJudgmentdissemination

43. The extent and the speed of the revolution represented by the Bailii website is hard to
articulate. That ispartlybecause, insuch ashort time, it has become an indispensable and
comprehensivesourceofinformation,bothgenerallyastowhatisgoingoninvariouscourts,and
specificallyifoneistryingtofindrelevantcourtdecisions.Withinjusta coupleofyearsofits
birthon2001,Bailiiwasbeingpaidtheullimatecomplimentbypractisinglawyers,academics
and judges: it was being taken for granted. As a quick, userfriendly, and reliable way of
findingaparticularcase,casesonaparticulartopic,casesdealinginvolvinga particularjudge,
oranymoreesotericsearch,itisremarkablywell organised,comprehensive,andpractical.

44.Itrepresentsachallengeaswellasabenefit.Thecostoflegal adviceandrepresentationwill
increaseifadvisersandadvocateshavetotrawlthroughBailiiandotherwebsitestomakesurethey
havemissednoJudgmentwhichmayberelevanttotheircase.Iamsurethatthe enormous
increaseinthesizeofbundlesofauthoritiesatcourthearings isinpartduetotheexistenceof
Bailiiandotherelectronicreports.I thinkthatthejudiciarycouldtakealeadbytakingastronger
linethaniscurrentlybeingtakenondiscouragingtheextensivecitationofcases arisingfrom
thefactthatvirtuallyeveryUKcourtandtribunaldecision,andindeedeveryLuxembourgand
Strasbourgcourtdecision,isavailableatthetouchofabuttonortheclickofamouse.

45. Like edisclosure, this plethora of law reports is a particular challengeforacommonlaw

system thrown up by the momentous and headlong developments in electronic technology. No
doubt,wewillcopewithbothchallenges,butboththejudiciaryandthelegalprofessionhaveaduty
to ensure that we do so, both effectively and quickly. It is extraordinaryhowquicklywe
have moved from the problems of lost important documents on disclosure, and unreported
important cases, still with us twenty years ago, to the present problems of a plethora of
potentiallyrelevant,butultimatelyirrelevant,electronicdocuments,and aplethoraofapparently

relevant,butultimatelyunimportant,reportedcases.

(9)IsjudgmentdisseminationathreattothesurvivalofJudgmentenhancement?

46.ItmightbesaidthoughthatwiththegrowthofBailiithat scholarlylawreportingistoa
certainextentnolongernecessary.This viewwouldseeJudgmentenhancementandJudgment
disseminationascompetitors,withthelatterdrivingouttheformer.Idisagreewiththisview.
The twotypesof lawreportingcomplement each other; atruth acknowledged by the recent
partnershipwhichhasbeenenteredintobetweenBailiiandtheICLR.

47.BailiirendersJudgmentsimmediatelyaccessibleastheyarehandeddown.Itmakesthem
available via the internet to anyone with access to the internet, quickly, easily and at no
expense.Itprovidesanessentialservicetothepublic.Ontheotherhand,scholarlyreportingisless
concerned with immediacy and more directed to summarising the effect of Judgments and
giving the vital details identified above. It is aimed more at a specialist market, and
provides a service which is comprehensive and reliable, and as speedy and accessible as is
consistentwiththoseaims.

48. Just as the traditional law reports cannot provided the comprehensiveandsameday
serviceofferedbyBailii,soBailiidoesnot offer the benefits provided by. the scholarly law
reports, such as an expert and judicious selection of the most important cases, with
headnotesandothervaluabledetailswhichIhavediscussed,

49.Whilethereisatheoretical riskthatBailiicouldundermine scholarlylawreportingIdo

not thinkitisareal one.Therisk,ifthereis one,wouldarisefrom acombinationofBailii's
comprehensive,speedycoverageatnocost,asagainstthelawreports'moreselectiveandmuch
fuller coverage at a price. In myview, the sheer quantity of decisions whichBailiiproperly
reports,coupledwiththeabsenceofheadnotes,listofcasescited,proceduralhistory,and,inthe
leadingcases,adetailed treatmentoftheadvocates'arguments,shouldensurethatBailiiand
scholarlylawreportingcannotbesaidtobeincompetitionwitheach other.Equally,therole
which scholarly law reports play in helping to disseminate precedent and authority also
demonstrateshowthetwocannotbesaidtobegenuinecompetitors.

50.ItseemstomethattherelationshipwhichBailiiandtheICLRhavejustenteredintodemonstrates
clearly the symbiotic relationship that exists between the two types of law reporting. One is
compendiousand readilyandspeedilyaccessibletoall.Theotherisselective,fundamental tothe
developmentofthelaw,andprimarilydirectedtolegalacademics andprofessionals.Thisisnot
intendedtodiminish,myearliercallfor greater accessibility of judgments to members of the
public.Bailiigoesasfaraswecan,throughafreemedium,toprovideaccesstojudgmentsand,
thereby,accesstojustice.Itistobeapplaudedforthatanddeserves areunstintingsupport.

(10)ImprovingBailii

51. We might ask ourselves however what we can doto make judgments on Bailii more
accessible to the general public. At the moment, people who click onto its website arc
faced with a sea of Judgments.Howdotheyknowonefromanother?Howdotheyknowthe
subjectmatter?Howdotheyknowwhichjudgmentsestablishorclarify'thelaw?Theprovisionofa
link to an ICLR summary. which is now availableinsomecasesreportedonBailiiisavery
beneficial first step; n o t l e a s t b e c a u s e t h e s u m m a r y p r o v i d e s a c l e a r a n d r e a d i l y
understandableoutlineofthecase.Butisthereanythingmorethatthejudgescando?

52.Inthisconnection,wonderifitisworthaddressinganideafirstmooted,Ibelieve,bySirHenry
Brooke,thattheyadoptthepracticecommontotheImmigrationandAsylumChamberoftheUpper
Tribunalofproducingstarreddeterminations.Thiswouldinvolvethecourt identifying,when
aJudgmentishandeddown,whetheritisimportant becauseit clarifiesthelaworestablishesa
newprincipal,orwhetheritis,bycontrast,unimportant.Thisatleastwouldenablemembersof
thepublictonarrowdownanysearchtheyweremakingofrecentcases.I havemyconcerns
aboutthisidea.Willitencouragejudgestoignore legalprinciplestoachieveadesiredresult,
andavoidtheconsequencesforthelawbynotstarringthecase?Andifthejudgewhodecides
onstarringisthejudgewhodecidesthecase,starringislikelytobe inconsistent,asome
judges are modest and others are not. Whereas I would be uncomfortable about another
judgemarkingacolleague'swork.

53.Nodoubt,detailedconsiderationcouldcomeupwithmore ideas.Iamsurethoughthat
withthesupportofthejudges,membersof the legal profession, and legal academics, and
through the nascert collaboration between Bailii and the ICLR two charities more and
better ideas to enable greater dissemination and understanding of Judgments can be
identifiedandintroduced.

(11)Conclusion

54.Iwouldliketofinishthislecturewithacommentmadeby NathanialLindley,lastserjeant
atlaw,andthereafterChanceryJudge,MasteroftheRollsandLawLord.Inanarticlepublished
intheLawQuarterlyReviewin1885hesaidthis,

`The Law Reports . . . are so extremely important to all branches of the Legal
Profession,theyaresovaluable,notonlytolegalpractitionersbuttoallpersonswho
carefor EnglishLawasascientificstudyorwhotakeaninterestin itsdevelopment
and improvement, that every member of the Profession ought to the best of his
abilitytoassistin supportingandperfectingthem. 24

55.Thattruthremainsasvalidnowasitwasthen.Itdoesnotjust apply to the Law Reports

though, it applies to the provision of Judgments by Bailii. Securing the provision of

Judgments, written with judgement, is not just extremely important to all branches of the legal
profession, to those who take an academic interest in English law or to those who are
interested in its development and improvement. In this Lord Lindley's truth reflected the
viewthatJudgmentsspeaktoan audience,whichismadeupofthosewhohaveaprofessional
interestinthelawanditsdevelopment.

56.Bytoday'sstandards,however,LordLindley'struthisonly partial.Judgmentsmustspeak
nownotjusttoaprofessionalaudience, buttheymustalsobecapableofspeakingclearlyto
a lay audience, prospectiveselfrepresented litigantsand citizensgenerally.Theruleoflaw
requires it. The complementary roles which scholarly law reporting and judgment
disseminationplayensurethatbothprofessionalandlayaudiencecangainproperaccesstothe
lawasthecourtsdevelopit.Theybothplayanessentialroleinsupportingtheruleoflaw.As
suchweshouldsupportbothformsoflawreporting.Inparticular,though,weshouldsupport
Bailii.Throughitscontributiontolawreporting,accesstoJudgmentsissomethingwhichis
forthepublic,forthelitigantinperson,justaclickaway.

57.Thankyou.
______________________________________________________________

1.IwishtothankJohnSorabjiforallhishelpinpreparingthislecture.FirstAnnualBailiiLecture
deliveredon20112012

2. R v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 at 259,'..it is not merelyof

some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but
shouldjmanifestlyandundoubtedlybeseentobedone.

3. J. Kimble, The Straight Skinny on Better Judicial Opinions, 9 Scribes Journal of Legal
Writing1(2003)at9

4. J. Kimble, The Straight Skinny on Better Judicial Opinions, 9 Scribes Journal of Legal
Writing1(2003)at2

5. J. Kimble, The Straight Skinny on Better Judicial Opinions, 9 Scribes Journal of Legal
Writing1(2003)at4.

6. J. Kimble, The Straight Skinny on Better Judicial Opinions, 9 Scribes Journal ofLegal
Writing1(2003)at7.


7.FlanneryvHalifaxEstateAgenciesLtd[2000]1WLR377at3812.

8. Knowlesetal(ed),AccesstoJusticeforLitigantsrinPerson(orselfrepresented l i t i g a n t s )
( C i v i l J u s t i c e C o u n c i l ) ( N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 1 ) http://www. judiciary .gov .uk/JC0
%2fDocuments%2fCJC%2fPublications%2fCJC+papers%2fCivil+Justice+Council+ +Report
+on+Access+to+Justice+for+Litigants+in+Person+(or+selfrepresented+lit

9.Knowlesetal,ibidat8.

10.HELP4LIPcitedinKnowlesetal,ibidat20.

11.<http://www.bailii.org/bailii/iclr/>

12.R.Atkinson,JudgementWriting,(AIJAConference,Brisbane)(13September 2002)at5<
http://www.aija.org.au/Mag02/Roslyn%20Atkinson.pdf>.

13.Foxibidat107.

14.R.Fox,JusticeintheTwentyFirstCentury,(Cavendish)(2000)at107.

15.DohertyvBirminghamCityCouncil[2006]EWCACiv1739,[2011]2AC
104,[2007]HLR32,para62

16.ManchesterCityCouncilvPinnock[2011]UKSC6,[2011]2WLR220

17.HeavenvPender(1883)L.R.11Q.B.D.503at509.

18.Ormoreaccurately,M'Alister(Donoghue)vStevenson[19321AC562.


19.QuotedbyProfAlanPattersoninLawyersandthePublicGood:Democracyin Action'?(2011)
at99.

20.SlatervMay(1704)2LdRaym1071at1072.

21.LordBinghamcitedinLawReportingandtheDoctrineofPrecedentin Halsbury'sLawsof
EnglandCentenaryEssays2007(LexisNexis)(2007)at71.

22.SwainMasonvMills&Reeve[2011]1WLR2735at[68].

23.AccubavShoeRepairsLtd[1975]1WLR1559

24.N.Lindley,TheHistoryoftheLawReports,(1885)1LQR137,149.