Alan Paterson published his masterly The Law Lords in 1982. Since then he has maintained his research and interest in the UK top court and published many chapters and articles on the subject. His latest monograph reviews the last few years of the work of the House of Lords’ Appellate Committee and the early experience of the new Supreme Court which came into being in 2009. The theme that runs through the book is the importance of the dialogues that the judges engage in when making judicial decisions: dialogues with one another and with counsel, with their judicial assistants, with other courts in the UK, with the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights, with Parliament and the Executive, with academics, and with the public. Paterson shows that this focus stimulates reflection on the working of these courts, and explains some changes of mind and vote by judges in a way that studies of the attitudes or psychological values of judges – which have been studied by others – may not be able to do.

Paterson explains his methodology in Chapter 1. It included interviews, using a standard set of questions, with members of, first, the House of Lords and later the Supreme Court about their decision-making processes and procedures. He was given access to many judicial notebooks. He also interviewed members of the Court of Appeal, leading counsel, judicial assistants, Principal Clerks of the Judicial Office and a Registrar of the Supreme Court. Other sources for the study include statistical information, presented in charts, about matters such as levels of agreement and dissent among the judges, voting records of individual judges, especially in close call cases, the numbers of leading, single and dissenting judgments delivered by each judge.

The evidence from these interviews, statistics and other information and Paterson's analysis and discussion of them are provided in Chapters 2 (dialogues with counsel), 3–5 (dialogues between the judges), 6 (dialogues with other courts, with academics and with judicial assistants), and 7 (dialogues with Parliament and the Executive). Chapter 8 summarises the material and reaches very positive conclusions about the Supreme Court.

In summary, Paterson finds that the transition from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court has improved the dialogues in various ways: pre-hearing meetings are held in the Supreme Court to see whether a collective view exists as to the key issues on which the members wish counsel to focus; during the hearing Justices may consult one another informally in their search for the best available answer; there is more time for debate than there was in the House of Lords, at the session when Justices meet to summarise their views after the hearings; the majority of Justices press for single judgments to be produced – by mid-2013 some 55% of cases were decided by single judgments: and this entails more collective engagement than hitherto between Justices during the decision-writing period. Thus flexibility, compromise, willingness to change position and negotiation are some of the new skills required of the Supreme Court Justices. This is a major change from the practice in the House of Lords.

The shift towards more collaborative team-working and dialogue between Justices since the move across Parliament Square has both positive and negative implications. The fact that one judge needs to write the lead judgment can lead to competition to do so between the members of panels; the production of single judgments requires more circulation of drafts and case conferences – and thus more time. Paterson comments that team-working could lead to a loss of individualism among the Justices, and a regrettable change from the common law tradition of diverse – often lively and literary – styles of judgments and judging. On the other hand, a positive aspect of the production of single majority judgments and the clear messages they send, especially in criminal cases, is that they make life easier for judges and the professions.

Dialogues with counsel have become sharper and more focused; reduced time for hearings has meant that more emphasis is placed on written materials – skeleton arguments for instance; oral advocacy is still regarded as important by the Justices – and by counsel, and involves greater participation by the judges in the dialogue than written advocacy can provide; the Justices continue to value the flexibility of oral argumentation; they do not favour more use of judicial assistants and of written advocacy from counsel.

Dialogues with other courts, notably the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice have not, Paterson finds, been much affected by the move to the Supreme Court. Dialogue with Strasbourg, however, has deepened, with “greater mutual understanding and respect of the role of each in the political firmament” (p. 317). This mention of the “political” is crucial, given how controversial some Strasbourg decisions have been in the UK and how they divide the political parties. Paterson usefully reviews some of the ways in which top court judges have dealt with their duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 section 2 to “take into account” the decisions of the Strasbourg Court, and their differing views (pp. 224–233).

Academic readers will enjoy the discussion of dialogues between top court judges and academics. Lord Millett once jokingly complained to his friend Peter Birks, with whom he discussed some cases informally, “Peter, you keep changing your mind … you say something and you persuade me completely, I adopt it in a judgment, then you change your mind and you leave me stranded” (p. 220). While Paterson does not dwell on this “village life” aspect of the UK legal system, he does note the close relationships between judges and the Bar, especially benchers of their Inns, their friendships and other contacts with universities, the visits that judges make to courts in other jurisdictions, the fact that they may sit in other jurisdictions (e.g. Hong Kong). I find this interesting. It seems that the culture, especially the high level of trust and trustworthiness among the inhabitants of this village, is such that these contacts and the dialogues they allow are not abused; but visitors from Mars or even the USA, with its aggressive culture and lack of civility in the legal world, might be surprised.

Dialogues with Parliament and the Executive have become problematic, and more so since the new court came into being. The move has ended some valuable informal channels of communication that were possible when the top court was in the Palace of Westminster and when the old-style Lord Chancellor was able to act as a link and buffer between the judiciary and the Executive. “A more effective dialogue between the Supreme Court and Parliament might help to facilitate the mutual recognition of the institutional competencies of each in relation to legislation” (p. 317). Paterson suggests that a form of post-appointment parliamentary confirmation, as exists with the Canadian Supreme Court, would produce legitimacy gains – legitimacy becoming increasingly important given the higher profile and growing powers of the Supreme Court.

In Chapter 7 (pp. 288–301) Paterson discusses a number of cases in the Bingham era and early Supreme Court individually, seeking to explain why the decisions went as they did; his conclusion that the Supreme Court has become more robust than the Bingham Court in its scrutiny of the Executive in immigration, asylum and national security cases is usefully substantiated by this review. In this chapter Paterson also reviews the success rate of the Government as a party in each of these eras, and finds that it has dropped considerably. Between 1969 and 2003 the Government won in 65% of cases – most of them criminal or tax. Between 2000 and 2009 criminal and tax cases dropped from 65% of its cases to 17%; in the Supreme Court they account for only 7 and 4%. Public law and human rights cases now account for 47% of Supreme Court cases. The Government succeeded in 57% of the cases in which it was a party between 2006 and 2009, and in 54% in the early years of the Supreme Court. I found it discomforting to treat changes in government success rates as illustrating matters such as the independence or deference of courts.

The relationship between the Supreme Court and the Executive is, then, even more problematic than the Parliament/court relationship. Paterson regrets the removal of a role for the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, as it removes any political accountability for these appointments and implies a self-perpetuating oligarchy. However, he concludes that “even though the dialogues with Parliament and the Executive are challenging, they are challenging in ways that have the potential to strengthen the unwritten constitution in the United Kingdom” (p. 321).

Paterson's proposals for further reform or improvement of the Supreme Court include a Register of Interests , though he does not argue this out and gives no footnote references for sources on the issue. The idea has been strongly resisted by the Justices. Overall his view is that greater transparency in relation to appointments, recusal in cases in which Justices have an interest (remember Lord Hoffmann in Pinochet) and a Register of Interests would promote a more effective dialogue with the public and thus enhance legitimacy; Justices should be more open about the fact that they make new law from time to time; they should write their judgments in ways that are more intelligible to the general public – as Lord Denning and Lord Hoffmann and others have done – Paterson gives OFT v Abbey National plc and others (2009) on bank charges (p. 321) and other rather less clear examples to illustrate the point.

Having made some points of criticism about the new court, in his final chapter Paterson concludes “That is more than enough carping. It is clear to all observers that many significant and worthwhile changes have taken place in the transfer of the final judicial authority from the House of Lords to the newly independent UK Supreme Court” (p. 321).

This is an excellent monograph. The themes are clear and relevant, the research is meticulous. It is fun to read in places: some of the stories about counsel and judges, even academics, make one smile. Of course, many of those characters express themselves wonderfully, which also makes for a good read.