Iain Duncan Smith: Public needs to know more about Supreme Court judges’ personal lives Iain Duncan Smith says he believes the British public should know more about the Supreme Court judges who are involved […]

Iain Duncan Smith says he believes the British public should know more about the Supreme Court judges who are involved in the case deciding the circumstances under which Article 50 can be triggered for Britain to leave the EU.

He suggested knowledge about the judge’s interests and motivations was important because they had the power to supersede the wishes of Parliament and the Government. This case had brought into question how the country was governed, he said.

As courts were straying more into political territory, it was “imperative that we know more about those placed in such positions of power,” the former work and pensions secretary said in a comment article for the Daily Mail.

The i politics newsletter cut through the noise Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

It was not clear the extent to which he thought the judge’s personal lives should come under scrutiny.

It comes after the Daily Mail was widely criticised after it published a run down of the High Court judges – who ruled that Parliamentary approval was needed before Article 50 could be triggered – online where it called one judge “openly gay”.

The wording was later removed, after condemnation and ridicule.

https://twitter.com/Simon_Pegg/status/797455133303013376

The Supreme Court case comes after the Government appealed against the High Court ruling. If the Supreme Court rules against the Government, possibly making way for Article 50 to be halted, it “will have set Parliament against the people and brought the constitution to a point of crisis,” said Mr Duncan Smith.

The public’s daily lives rested on the Justice’s shoulders, he said.

Lord Sumption openly wore his Olympics tie to the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, the day Mr Duncan Smith’s article appeared in the Daily Mail.

‘Close to risible’

Mr Duncan Smith, who campaigned for Leave, said it was “close to risible” that politicians and lawyers had expressed anger over the media coverage of the 11 judges, which had revealed that some had “strong associations with EU institutions”.

There was no point in criticising the media for attempting to reveal the opinions of the judges, saying counterparts in the US went through “grueling hearings” to determine more about their legal opinions and personal lives.

He also said the judges were more likely to make rulings “suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law” since Britain joined the EU and fell under EU law.

“I believe it’s time for us to introduce a process of Parliamentary hearings to examine candidates for the Supreme Court when a vacancy has to be filled,” he said.

‘Watching paint dry’

The former Tory leader said that although watching the Supreme Court hearing, which has been aired on news channels, was “like watching paint dry,” it had raised questions about “the nature of the Court and the supremacy of Parliament which have until now been shrouded in obscurity”.

“It is surely only right to recognise that, and to allow Parliament to question those who seek to sit in the highest court in the land,” he added.