How to reform the Supreme Court.

Written by our correspondent Jo Snootleigh-Toade.

Yesterday the Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling that the proroguing of Parliament was illegal. The Sovereign had prorogued the Parliament herself on the advice of the Prime Minister. So the Supreme Court has set itself above the Queen. She, they ruled, had acted illegally on the misinformation provided by her own Prime Minister.

Interesting times...

So who are these people who are more important than Her Majesty?

For a start there is a severe gender imbalance. Although Lady Hale, their President, is female, only Lady Black and Lady Arden are not old men.

Perhaps more important, they are all proud of their Oxbridge heritage. Lady Hale boasts of having been at Girton. The three exceptions are Lord Kerr, who is from Belfast; Lord Hodge, who is is from Scotland, and Lady Black, who went to Durham and Leeds. The rest are all from (strongly Remaining) Cambridge and Oxford. They are, finally, all white, and elderly.

If the Supreme Court wishes to start making political decisions, then perhaps it might be better made up if it were more diverse?

After the coming Labour victory in the polls, thanks to postal votes and the split between the Brexit party and the Conservatives, perhaps we might like to consider replacing the president of the Supreme Court with Sir Keir Starmer, a man whose impeccable political record speaks for itself. From a legal background, Sir Keir has a wide ranging experience of life outside the Courts of Law which is, sadly, not the case with the current incumbents.

Emily Thornberry, too, would make an excellent President with her wit and her legal background.

Diane Abbott was one of the first black women from a state school to enter Cambridge (Newnham 1973-76) and she was also the first black woman to become a parliamentary candidate. She has had a wide experience of race relations and initiating legislation and therefore understands the thinking behind law making. She would add greatly to the diversity of the Supreme Court.

At the moment, the House of Lords is over full. It has, frankly, become a retirement centre for politicians. What is so badly needed is a place where people of talent can be rewarded - and that is exactly why the membership of the Supreme Court should be increased from 12 to, say 25 people – roughly the size of the current Cabinet. It should be seen as a pool of talent rather than a lifelong privilege for an advantaged few. It is a good time to consider some rank outsiders for a change. Richard Ayoade or even Christopher Biggins could be appointed to a larger Supreme Court and perhaps lighten it up a bit.

In a democracy, the extraordinary is elitist - and elites, as de Tocqueville noted in his study of America, do not sit well in democratic societies. So perhaps it is time to to reform the pale, male and stale Supreme Court and to inject a blood transfusion of younger, more diverse and representative judges. A small exclusive club of old, white, men from elitist Universities is no way to run a country.

Disclaimer:The views expressed by Jo Snootleigh-Toade are not necessarily those of the host of this website.