The horizontal effect

Grand Wizards of the law assemble in Scotland for a "drinking party" ... Panel discussion by UK Supreme Court luminaries ... Human rights and human beings ... Lord Hope on display ... Leverhulme in attendance 

On a glum Friday afternoon this month, four aging men assembled behind a table on the stage in an old church called the Barony and talked about the horizontal effect.

The Barony, on Rottenrow East, is a dark Scottish church which the University of Strathclyde bought in a crumbling state for one pound a few years ago.

A crowd of swivelling heads gathered eagerly to listen - most of them pleased to have been invited so they could be seen to be there.

The muster included some scruffily-attired academics who had never been inside a courtroom; snooty and impossibly young silks from Edinburgh and two senior Glaswegian solicitors who had been struck off for dishonesty.

Behind the table on the altar was the angular and dusty celebrant, Professor Alan Patterson of Strathclyde University.

Sitting next to him were three high priests of the legal profession in what it still left of Great Britain: the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury; Lord Sumption of Abramovich and Lord Reed of Europe. 

Judges have to retire at 70 and Robert Reed, 55, a Scottish appointment, is in it for the long haul even if the Caledonians secede.

One judge who didn't have to hang up his spurs at 70 was Baron Hope of Craighead and it was in his honour ostensibly that the great and the not-so-good had been summoned.

Lord Hope used to be Deputy President of the Supreme Court. He is a small man who exudes a quiet authority.

He got his marching orders last year when he turned 75, but he looks 50.

Neuberger: President of the UK Supremes

Compulsory retirement at 70 beckons for judges appointed after 1995; an asinine law designed to catch the odd person with dementia but which throws out the cream.

The university called the event a symposium. A symposium, says Wikipedia, was a drinking party - "a forum for men of good family to debate, plot, boast, or simply to revel with others".

Well there was some wine on offer and an hour was set aside at the end for what the convenors curiously called "drinks reception and networking". 

It must have put guests from the Supreme Court off because when the time came they were slow to "network" and stayed on the stage for quite a while in collective security.

But, amid the throng there was plenty of boasting in the way lawyers brag - showing off their superior knowledge. Many Scots advocates speak in the effortless patois and burr which can sound pompous to ordinary folk and probably is.

Ordinary folk weren't there to trouble the judges, but the judges were troubled about them. The whole thrust of the symposium was Human Rights, Europe and "God bless the Supreme Court". 

*   *   *

In St Paul's, is the famous inscription to Sir Christopher Wren written by his son. "Lector, si monumentum requiris circumspice." (Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you.)

Judges live forever or are entombed, depending on your view, in the law reports.

This panel was more than happy to talk about their judgments and their differences.

Lord Neuberger spoke eloquently of human rights and the common law. He praised Lord Hope's contribution as one of remarkable quality and consistency.

Arguing that human rights law had been reinforced by the common law, he told us that European judges paid heed to Lord Hope's judgments.

Lord Sumption wondered what would have happened to human rights had there been no human rights legislation or had Britain not signed up to the convention.

Human rights were identified years ago by Blackstone, he said. They were common law rights: the right to private property; the right of unimpeded access to the courts; liberty; personal security.

Maxwell-Fyfe: no speaking out of courtA Scotsman, David Maxwell-Fyfe, who would have banned the symposium as Lord Kilmuir, helped draft the Convention. 

The talk of repealing the Human Rights Act, said Lord Sumption, was mainly because of "insensitive micro-management" from Strasbourg. He thought the law would not stop developing.

Lord Reed spoke authoritatively about the European Union. I was told that as a senior advocate he asked for the French version of the European Law Reports to see if they had been translated correctly. 

It always amuses me that people who ask "questions" at these functions are those who were not invited to speak, but want to have their say anyway.

Lord Hope, oddly not invited to join the panel, was sitting in the front row and almost rushed to ask the first question. 

It allowed the judges to show us how they disagree. He spoke of the case of Pinnock where a local authority wanted to evict a tenant.

The Supreme Court departed from decisions of its predecessor, the House of Lords, in favour of a line of authority from the European Court of Human Rights.  

The council was keen to boot out a chap who had been in his house for 30 years. Members of his delightful family were subject to a few anti-social behaviour orders.

Mr Pinnock said it infringed his human rights, in particular Article 8.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In Pinnock, Lord Neuberger held that where there "is a clear and constant line of decisions [the European cases] whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law, and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook or misunderstand some argument or point of principle, we consider that it would be wrong for this court not to follow that line".  

The court held that generally the occupier of a home was entitled procedurally to a ruling by a court of the proportionality of eviction in every possession claim by a public authority. 

Public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act. The courts are public authorities too. The articles, therefore, spread wide. This is called the horizontal effect. 

Sumption: not necessarily right

Lord Sumption, who wasn't in Pinnock, opined crisply that it is a straight matter of landlord and tenant law and the identity of the landlord is irrelevant. 

Lord Neuberger, whose general urbanity masks a sharp wit, replied:

"Lord Sumption is not necessarily right. I do not use the word "necessarily" in the polite sense."

*   *   *

Whatever they say, there is no doubt that the Human Rights Act has been good for the business of judging. 

Other questioners didn't ask questions but the Law Society President, Bruce Beveridge did. It reminded me of those 60 second celebrity interviews.

"I wonder if the panel would care to nominate what they think is the most important decision of the Supreme Court ..."

Lord Neuberger: "The short answer is the panel would not care to." 

It was clear that the justices respected and maybe even liked each other.

Professor Patterson praised the Supreme Court under Lord Neuberger. From June last year till February there had been no dissenting judgments.

It was a curious thing for an academic to say because dissenting judgments (have you noticed how they are always described as powerful?) keep lecturers in business. 

Lord Hope, with a look of benevolent scepticism

At stage right stood the main reason we were there, a large silent painting of Lord Hope already unveiled. Dare I say that he looks older in the painting but that phenomenon is not new?

You could tell his Lordship was as pleased with the painting as he was with Pinnock.

The artist, as the judges did, told us how he went about his work. He depicted the Baron just before he came on stage to perform his role as Chancellor of the University. 

The original plan was for him to sit on a large throne, but Lord Hope said it was not very elegant because his feet didn't touch the floor. 

Instead, he is seen reclining in his robes.

At a symposium young men were allowed to recline but only after they had killed their first wild boar.

Lord Neuberger, admiring the artwork, observed that Lord Hope was displaying that look of benevolent scepticism so familiar to his colleagues and advocates at the bar. 

The President, who I am sure has stopped a few wild bores himself, could be forgiven for pondering what they will do to him in four years' time.

Anyway, it seems old judges never die. They just pose and are painted.