‘Skype a Supreme Court justice’ scheme gets go-ahead following successful pilot

By on

Thirty-minute sessions start this month

A new Skype-based outreach scheme that gives young school students the opportunity to fire questions at a Supreme Court justice officially launches this month.

The new programme, ‘Ask a Justice’, offers students with a keen interest in law a unique opportunity to have a live Q&A with one of the court’s 12 judges, all from the comfort of their very own classroom.

As reported by Legal Cheek, the UK’s top court trialled the programme across six schools last summer, and following positive feedback has now decided to push ahead with an official launch.

The 2019 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The scheme sees students have one-to-one informal chats with a justice about their career and experiences, while also learning about the Supreme Court’s role within the legal system. It aims to help students aged approximately 14-18 who may struggle to get to Westminster to see the court in person.

📷 Lord Briggs speaking to students from Helston Community College

Speaking at the launch of the pilot, the Supreme Court’s president, Lady Hale, said:

“We hope to reach out to young people far beyond our courtrooms here in London, who might otherwise find it difficult to visit us. My colleagues and I are looking forward to talking with the students who, no doubt, will have some very interesting questions for us.”

The 30-minute sessions, which start at the end of this month, will offer ten students the opportunity to speak for approximately three minutes each with a pre-assigned justice.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



Could it be that you don’t love me anymore?

What we had was so special.

I’ve got pictures of you covering literally every square inch of my bedroom wall!!!


Are you cheating on me, Brenda?



I can get very upset, Brenda…

Katie Kitten Kingdom



YoUr makinge me ANGRy!!’.,!!!?



Hey Katie, send some more of them dunes alrite?

Baz from the rec

Hey bruv, is dunes like an anagram or some shizzle?


Funny how these posts are not deleted – it looks like Alex doesn’t care what you post if the target has left his employment.


Just the Katie King stuff it seems. I think she refused to do certain things in the office and he got a bit upset.


Alex, you amateur.

Katie Kring


Why are the police at my door Brenda???

Are they here to whisk me away to you?

Why are they shining lazer pointers on me through my window Brenda?

Are we going to be together soon Brenda?????



What’s next? Supreme Court Justices on Cam4 ?


This is all the jobsworth civil service court staff giving the judges something to do other than to make speeches to legal professionals

A big empty building, barely used, when our magistrates and crown courts are in a state of collapse

It’s a Supreme Court with no constitutional jurisdiction

It’s going to be a short lived “UK” Supreme Court when Scotland leaves

Total farce frankly


I am but a primitive creature of the heath, so excuse my savage ignorance, but what does “It’s a Supreme Court with no constitutional jurisdiction” mean in plain English?


The Supreme Court cannot declare an act of Parliament unconstitutional, unlike the US Supreme Court

Hence the Miller case: all constitutional issues are punted back to the legislature for another vote

No deal is ironically all Gina Miller’s fault


That doesn’t come close to even beginning to make any kind of rational sense.


In any normal democracy, the Supreme Court would have declared the 2016 referendum void for illegality and ordered a recount

In this country, because of the lack of a constitutional jurisdiction and the Royal Prerogative, it ordered the next steps to be punted back to the legislature

This is all Gina Miller’s fault


It really is strange. I can read English, and you appear to be able to write it, but I still can’t understand a word from you.


Supreme Court in UK not supreme.


Mr Anonymous
What exactly is ” constitutional jurisdiction “. Please explain that to the people of this planet.
Thank you.


It is well known that no formal constitutional instrument exists in the United Kingdom. It follows, therefore, that questions about constitutional jurisdiction can only be formulated in the following way: By what rules, legal and non-legal, are the most important principles of constitutional behaviour defined, and by what agencies, juridical and political, are those rulesappliedandinterpreted?Sincenofundamental- rulesoflawrestrict the competence of the legislature and no legal organ has the power of judicial review over legislative acts, constitutional jurisdiction in its most familiarsense mightbesaidsimplynot to exist.Howeversome legalrules which now exist might be called "fundamental" in that they are not in practice likely to be altered, and there are a number of non-legal rules (the
"conventions" of constitutional behaviour) which might be called "funda- mental" in the sense that the most important of them are regarded as morally binding by both people and government. judicial review and
constitutional jurisdiction of course ,exists in the sense that the ordinary courts of law will ensure that the actions of all officials and subordinate agencies comply with the terms of Acts of Parliament and are not ultra vires.
The rules which define constitutional rights might be classified as follows:
1.Legalrulesderivingfrombothcommonlawandstatutewhichgovernthe mannerinwhichlegislativeauthorityisexercised
The major principles are that a statute must be made by the concurrent action of Crown, Lords and Commons, and that a statute passed in the
Fellow of the Queen's College, Oxford. Fellow of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.
© 1962 Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht
Constitutional jurisdiction in the United Kingdom 541
proper manner and form may repeal any existing provision of law. How- ever, it is provided by the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 that in certain defined circumstances financial legislation may be passed without the assent of the House of Lords and other legislation may be passed by the Commons and Crown without the Lords after an effective delay of one year. The Act of 1911 fixes the maximum duration of each Parliament at five years and this period may not be extended without the assent of the
powers of the executive machinery of government and the rights and duties of individuals
Here complete enumeration would be lengthy. Examples are.the Acts of Union and statutes providing for the government of Northern Ireland, the judicature Acts, Crown Proceedings Act, Statutory Instruments Act,
Life Peerages Act, legislation setting up government departments, nation- alised industries and providing for the conduct of elections and delimi- tation of constituency boundaries.
Much of this legislation deals with rights of citizens as well as with the structure of government (for example the Representation of the People Acts, and the Tribunals. and Inquiries Act). Other legislation directly affectingrightsanddutiescanbefoundintheBillofRightsof1689,the Habeas Corpus Act, Official Secrets Acts, Public Order Act, British Na- tionality Acts and Administration of justice Acts. Rules as to police powers, breach of the peace, public meeting, treason and sedition are laid downbothinstatuteanddecisionsatcommonlaw.
3. Non-legal rules practices and convention
Themost importantoftheseregulatetherelationsbetweentheCabinet and Parliament, Government and Opposition and between the Prime Minister and the Crown. They are also important in the field of Common- wealth relations.
These then are the principle classes of rules. What are the agencies by
which they are applied interpreted and enforced? The following could well be described as exercising in this sense a constitutional jurisdiction:
1. The Courts of Law
2. The House of Commons (and in a lesser degree the House of Lords) 3. Government Departments and Special Tribunals
4. The organs of public opinion.

Katie Kling

Brenda, if you get this meaaagw please ring me back!!!!!!

The Feds are chasing me and I’m currently clinging to a drainpipe on the outside of the Middlesex Guildhall.

I don’t know why that want to keep us apart——

Inter generational love isn’t always wrong, is it? Well, unless your name is Humbert, right?????

Send down a rope, Brenda!!!!


The UK is turning into a joke state.


So’s your mum.


Joke states are in fashion right now. Just keeping up with the Joneses.


This state. Is coming like a ghost state. (Too much fighting on the dance floor).

Captain Brexit

Once we leave the Parasitic EU, our Supreme Court will be truly sovereign again. No more acquiescing to brussels on their subpar legal decisions.

Next we should rebuild hadrian’s wall, bigger & better than ever.

Viva la Vida Brexit!


Funny how you sign off your Britain first viewpoint with French.

Captain Brexit

My good Man/Woman, that is definitely spanish and not french.

The EU has tainted your understanding of dialects; we’ll get our sovereignty back to be able differentiate Italy from Poland on 29 March 2019!


Don’t Brits just do “generic foreign accent” when abroad and hope it will pass?


The British only recognise a few accent types:

1. Posh
2. Yokel
3. Northern
4. Chav
5. Foreign

Can't stand Londoners

People who live in london only recognise a few accent types…

Primarily because they have no idea what the real world is like.


Yup. In London it’s:

– Generic yoot (encompassing a blend of African, Carribbean, Asian and white-kid-trying-to-be-cool)

– Cockney (rare- now more likely to be found in Essex).

– Posh

– Arab


Forgot generic Eastern European!

English peeps can’t distinguish, sadly.

Maybe it’s starker?




In any normal democracy, the Supreme Court would have declared the 2016 referendum void for illegality and ordered a recount

In this country, because of the lack of a constitutional jurisdiction and the Royal Prerogative, it ordered the next steps to be punted back to the legislature

This is all Gina Miller’s fault


I’m not sure that I understand how the constitution and remit of the Supreme Court is the fault of Gina Miller. I hesitate to ask this, and may well regret doing so, but are you able to explain?

Join the conversation

Related Stories