The Justice Diaries: Joshua Rozenberg
Joshua Rozenberg QC is one of Britain's best-known legal commentators. He is the only full-time journalist to have been appointed as Queen's Counsel honoris causa. He is an honorary Master of the Bench of Gray's Inn and a non-executive board member of the Law Commission.
Joshua studied Law at the University of Oxford, after which he qualified as a solicitor in 1976. He holds honorary doctorates in Law from the University of Hertfordshire, Nottingham Trent University, the University of Lincoln, and the University of Law.
Having spent 15 years as the BBC Legal Affairs Correspondent and further 8 years editing the Daily Telegraph's legal coverage, Joshua now presents the Radio 4 series Law in Action, a programme he launched in 1984.
He has published books including Trial of Strength, The Search for Justice and The Case for the Crown. His latest book, Enemies of the People?, looks at how judges make law and asks whether they can maintain public confidence while balancing conflicting interests.
***
What was it about the Daily Mail headline that inspired you to write Enemies of the People?
To be honest, I didn’t read the headline and say “there’s a book in that”. But the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission invited me to give a lecture with that title at around the time that Bristol University Press asked me to write a book about how judges handle social issues in court. So it seemed a good title to give the book.
The headline — without the question mark at the end — had huge resonance at the time it was published. Readers will have to buy the book if they want to know whether I share the Daily Mail’s view of Her Majesty’s judges.
What’s the most important lesson people should take away from your book?
That appeal courts are not final because they are infallible: they are infallible only because they are final (page 119). In other words, there are different views of what the law should be on any particular topic; what counts is the decision taken by the last court to rule on it.
Of course, it may not be the law for ever. Parliament, or some other legislature, may overrule it. Another court may find a way round it. The more experienced the judges are, the more likely they are to reach the right judgment. But they are not senior because they invariably get it right; they are deemed to be right because they are the most senior to rule on it.
What relationship do you think the judiciary should have with the media in an increasingly legalised and active media world?
A good working relationship between the judiciary and the media is in everybody’s interests. Courts should make it as easy as possible for journalists to receive and understand the rulings they deliver. Reporters should strive to report these judgments fairly and accurately. Close co-operation between the judiciary and the media does not require either side to give up its independence; the relationship should not become too cosy.
Aside from your own book, what are you reading at the moment?
I have just finished reading Churchill, published by Andrew Roberts in 2018. Though it’s around 1000 pages, not a word is wasted. To compress Churchill’s life and times into a single paperback is a huge achievement.
What have been your lockdown highlights and lowlights?
Highlights: being able to watch and report court hearings and interview guests for my Radio 4 series Law in Action without leaving home.
Lowlights: not being able to cover cases by sitting in court and not being able to meet the guests I have interviewed for Law in Action.
As a journalist, how have you adapted to working life during Covid-19 when court activity has largely been suspended?
Court activity has not been largely suspended, with the exception of jury trials (and even those are now resuming). Instead, the courts are operating remotely. That, in itself, is an important story for any journalist to cover. As a freelance journalist, I used to work from home part-time. Now, I work from home full-time. But screen-breaks, fresh air and exercise (limited, in my case, I’m afraid) are essential.
What might the impact of Covid-19 be on how the legal system operates in future?
It has hugely accelerated the move to remote working. Judges have heard some cases by phone for several decades and through video links for many years. Many more cases will be decided in this way in future. The move from paper to electronic files will speed up and there will be greater use of video-conferencing among lawyers.
What would you say to young people getting started in your profession?
Journalism is not a profession, as such. The solicitors’ profession, the bar, chartered legal executives and other parts of the legal system are strictly regulated; you have to qualify to join and if you fail to comply with the rules you may be thrown out. But anyone can profess to be a journalist; indeed, that’s an essential aspect of free speech.
And my message to anyone starting out in journalism? Have something to fall back on, another skill or livelihood. Journalism has never been so precarious, so poorly paid or so uncertain. Sadly, most people simply don’t want to pay for news.