Judges traditionally have not spoken to news organisations. But there are real signs of a change in the relationship between judges and the media in recent weeks, with judges themselves taking a new approach.

Two recent reports are evidence of a greater willingness to speak to the media: on Channel 4 News (made by ITN) on October 21, a sitting judge gave an interview on camera about the effects of an increase of litigants in person in the family courts.

Judge Cahill, QC, was interviewed about problems for judges caused by the lack of legal representation in the family courts: “All a judge can try to do is lend such assistance as they are able to those who are not represented, but of course that has to be dictated by the fact that the judge is there to do justice between the two parties, not to present the case on behalf of one or the other.”

On October 23, Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, spoke to The Times about how proposals to increase court fees could have an impact on care cases in which local authorities are under a statutory duty to protect children. “It is not a question of voluntarily taking advantage of the system in the way that can be said of citizens going to law. No one has asked the police to pay a fee to go to court for criminal prosecutions.”

Both these news reports show a shift in judicial thinking. Why has this happened?

There may be a realisation that the lack of a voice in the media does not always benefit the judiciary. Judges are often criticised but rarely does anyone speak up for them. In most walks of public life senior figures respond when criticised in the media: company chairmen, politicians, clergy, leaders of public and private bodies. The exception has always been the judiciary.

The only judges usually prepared to talk are retired, but a retired judge may be out of touch with modern judicial thinking. In what other area would someone retired from the profession act as its public voice?

The other stimulus for change may be the “increased judicial activism” referred to by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury on November 1 at the Bar Conference and the need to inform the public about what judges do and what the rule of law means. Judges increasingly seem to accept that they should stand up for what they think is right.

Two more developments also emphasise the increased contemporary need for a public judicial voice. A recent House of Lords select committee Report (October 9, 2008) on the constitution focused on the way in which the press criticises judges for interpreting legislation promulgated by Parliament. The new supreme court in October 2009 will also bring an end to the law lords sitting in the House of Lords and to the voice of the judiciary in Parliament.

Obviously judges are unlikely to speak about their specific cases or to make stinging criticism of political policy. But there should be room for judges or a judicial spokesman to speak to television or newspaper reporters about the independence of the judiciary or constraints on sentencing or to respond to criticism.

Judgments, not media interviews, will always be the main voice of the judges. But issues such as a wider role for the Judicial Communications Office and the identification of appropriate spokesmen should be explored. It could lead to a greater understanding of the role of the judge and the public would be better informed. It is time for the stand-off between media and judiciary to be reviewed.

The author is head of compliance at ITN and an employed barrister

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty