Harsh personal attacks on judges are bad for democracy and in danger of diminishing the independence of the judiciary, the former deputy president of the supreme court has warned.

In a forceful defence of the court’s justices ahead of next week’s pivotal article 50 appeal hearing, Lord Hope, who retired in 2013, said recent attacks had gone far beyond legitimate criticism.



He revealed that a scheduled speech about the law and Europe by a supreme justice, Lord Mance, had to be cancelled because of heightened political sensitivity over the European Union and Brexit.



His comments come in the wake of a Daily Mail front page that branded the three high court judges who decided the article 50 case “enemies of the people” and media attacks on the supreme court president, Lord Neuberger, and the deputy president, Lady Hale.

“Things have been happening which have made the lives of those wishing to come into the judiciary much less [free],” Hope told a meeting hosted by the centre right thinktank Policy Exchange. “We run the risk of a diminished judiciary as a result. Recently the criticism has been taken too far and [there have been] harsh personal attacks.”

Hope said he had suffered from “wounding” personal attacks in the past. “It’s bad for democracy,” he added. “Every lecture given by members of the supreme court and [even] sentences are being taken out of context.

“Supreme court judges do give and publish lectures as part of their public [role]. This [excessive criticism] runs the risk of closing things down. At least one lecture [Lord Mance’s] was taken out in case it excites that sort of comment.”



The supreme court will next week hear the appeal by the government against the high court ruling that only parliament, as opposed to ministers, has the authority to trigger article 50 of the treaty on the European Union, which will formally start the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.



In recognition of the unprecedented case’s constitutional importance, 11 supreme court justices will hear the arguments.



Addressing the Policy Exchange meeting, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore, called on Neuberger and Hale to “recuse” themselves and stand down from the bench because of their alleged impartiality.

He accused Hale of giving a detailed speech on the issues in the article 50 case before hearing it and of introducing new questions about potential parliamentary procedure which had not been discussed in the high court case. Moore also said pro-European tweets by Neuberger’s wife constituted political activity.

Judges, Moore said, were traditionally considered to be the guardians of the constitution and the “lions under the throne”. Have they now become “snakes in the grass?”, he asked.

“The great majority of judges are very pro-human rights and pro-Europe,” he added. “Is there enough diversity of opinion on the supreme court? They should be independent of one another or is it group think?”



The former home secretary and Conservative party leader, Michael Howard, accused Hale of “getting her retaliation in first” by delivering a speech ahead of the case. “It was wholly undesirable,” he said.

Although the Brexit case was not an example of judicial overreach, Lord Howard said there was evidence of a “judicial grab for power”. Since judges are “unaccountable” it would be “monstrous” if criticism of the judiciary were to be curtailed. “It’s of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not be immune from robust criticism,” he said.

Responding to attacks on the justices, a supreme court spokesperson said: “The role of the justices is to consider the points of law presented to them impartially, and to fulfil their judicial oath in reaching a decision according to the law. No evidence has been presented that would suggest any justice of the supreme court has compromised their ability to fulfil that duty.”

In statements earlier this month, the court defended Neuberger and Hale. A court spokesperson said: “Justices’ spouses are fully entitled to express personal opinions, including on issues of the day. Lady Neuberger’s passing comments on Twitter have absolutely no bearing on Lord Neuberger’s ability to determine the legal questions in this case impartially, according to the law of the land.”

In relation to Hale’s speech, a supreme court spokesperson said: “Lady Hale was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students, as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law. It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high-profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way.

“One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for parliament to be able to lawfully trigger article 50, if the government loses its appeal. A number of politicians have raised the same question. Though it was not dealt with explicitly in the high court judgment, it is not a new issue. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”