Wrenched from the House of Lords amid a political coup, the UK's Supreme Court has endured an eventful three years. Suzanna Ring and Alex Novarese recount the Court's history, the attempts to create a clear identity and assess its successes and failures

It was Thursday 12 June 2003. The most senior judges of England and Wales and members of the Lord Chancellor's Department had escaped London for the Cotswolds – Minster Lovell, to be exact – for a strategic discussion about the administration of justice at the suggestion of then Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips (pictured, right).

As the group sat down to begin discussions, word arrived from Downing Street: the role of the Lord Chancellor was set to be abolished, a Judicial Appointments Commission was to be set up and the Law Lords were to be removed from the House of Lords and refashioned as a Supreme Court.

The episode reads something like a 19th century novel as the news set in motion a chain of events that had been abortively proposed for the past 140 years, yet caused ructions across the judiciary and barely concealed tensions with the executive.

The political fallout was also to lead to the departure of then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine – one of the most powerful holders of that office in recent years and a staunch defender of the judiciary – who was replaced by Lord Falconer, a confidante of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair (pictured).

As the reality of the situation emerged, the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, described the overhaul as "cobbled together on the back of an envelope", while in a speech at Gresham College in 2010, Phillips recounts: "No one at Minster Lovell had any inkling of these dramatic changes. There had been no consultation about them at all.

"It seems that not even the Queen had been informed of the imminent demise of the official who had, for a millennium or more, been the sovereign's most senior officer of state."

But with support for the changes from figures such as then Senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, and Blair already publicly committed to the shake-up, the deal was effectively done.

The 12 Law Lords found themselves as 'passengers' faced with no alternative but to accept the move and get on with the task in hand: creating a Supreme Court worthy of its title.

After a prolonged search for a new site – amid much grumbling about costs – the new Supreme Court launched in October 2009 to a decidedly mixed response; seldom has such an obvious constitutional reform gained such a muted reception.

The new Court also emerged in the spotlight at a time in which its role was to see it inevitably handle cases of huge political import, thanks to the twin (and sometimes conflicting) forces of the post-9/11 security clampdown and the growing jurisdictional implications of European law on the UK.

While few doubted that the Law Lords were operationally separate from Parliament, the obtuseness of the historic arrangement and lack of identity for the UK's top court had often served to diffuse controversy when rulings went against the Government. A fully independent Supreme Court would get no such protection.

But if it was easy to see – given its inauspicious beginnings and daunting workload – that the enfant body would become mired in controversy, the Court has gone a long way towards silencing the critics, winning the backing of much of the legal profession, observers and, most unambiguously, its own judges.

140 years in the making

The July 2003 Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation paper fleshing out the proposed reforms was not the first time the UK Government had tried to separate the judiciary from the House of Lords.

The debate had been ongoing in varying contexts for more than 100 years and the two came close to separation under Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone's cabinet in the proposed Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873.

The Act was a response to concerns at the Government over the quality of judges in light of the hereditary peer system. However, before it came into force, Gladstone's government fell in 1874.

While the Conservatives also tried to take steps to address the issues of quality through the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, introducing judicial life peers, the proposed 1873 policy of separating the judiciary from the upper chamber was abandoned by the administration of Benjamin Disraeli and the Law Lords remained.

Discussions over the abolition of the Law Lords continued to arise periodically over the years. Indeed, the debate became something of an ideological litmus test for those energised by constitutional matters.

The reformists' case was obvious: abolishing the House of Lords' judicial committee would symbolically and clearly demonstrate the independence between the executive and the judiciary, and thus give a clearer identity to the resulting court.

Those opposed to such measures marshalled the argument traditionally favoured by conservatives: that while the UK's haphazard constitutional settlement was complex and externally confusing, it delivered the democratic goods and should not be lightly meddled with.

Probably the most significant argument against reform was that by removing the Law Lords, their technical input in shaping legislation going through the upper house would be lost.

Certainly, no one credibly argued that having the UK's highest court within the Lords hurt the quality of judges or affected the court's independence.

Nevertheless, calls for reforms gained some ground from the 1960s onwards, with some arguing that the Court of Appeal should be the final court on the basis that a court of just 12 judges is under huge pressure to cover all specialist fields and keep up with the expanding range of criminal law.

Through the 1990s, there was also some support from senior judges for the creation of a Supreme Court, notably Lords Bingham and Steyn.

Bingham, as the then Senior Law Lord, gave a lecture 'A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom' at University College London in May 2002, in which he said: "…the Law Lords are judges, not legislators, and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution."

None of which seemed enough to generate much reformist momentum even by the late 1990s, when the new Labour Government was pushing through a host of constitutional legislation, including devolution and the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998.

As such, when the shake-up that included the Supreme Court's launch – championed personally by Blair – emerged in the summer of 2003 amid rushed communication and a chaotic ministerial reshuffle, it shook and then later unsettled the judiciary.

"Quite a lot of people felt that it was bounced out as a political coup," says Lord Hope (pictured), one of the 12 Law Lords who was to move to the new court.

"There was no warning and various people that should have been consulted were not."

The divide regarding the case for the Court went right to the top. The Law Lords themselves were split right down the middle, with Hope in the against camp, while Irvine's fierce advocacy for the status quo cost him his job.

Politically, the Conservatives opposed the shake-up, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in favour, while cross-benchers in the Lords were divided.

Into this volatile mix, Falconer was called in to calm the situation. By all accounts, he did so with considerable success – perhaps ironic as his reputation as Lord Chancellor in political and legal circles has often been overshadowed by his personal connection with Blair.

Hope says: "Whether the move would take place at all depended on the relationship between Lord Falconer and Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice at the time, who was persuaded by [Falconer] that the Government should have its way.

"[The discontent] disappeared fairly quickly because Lord Falconer was determined to make sure there was a phase of consideration."

Calming the waters left the small matter of where to put the Court – not as easy as it sounds given the requirements for a secure site in central London, preferably already in Government ownership.

So baffled were the judges by the direction they should take that Battersea Power Station was even considered an outside contender at one point, though, unsurprisingly, the west wing of Somerset House was seen as a more likely destination.

In the end, the Middlesex Guildhall site at Parliament Square that was finally chosen – at the suggestion of Department for Constitutional Affairs minister Chris Leslie – was not in the original shortlist of suggested locations.

However, the complication remained that the site was housing a sizeable Crown Court, which would have to be relocated well ahead of a substantial refit.

"That was a brilliant choice, really," remembers Hope. "It meant a very substantial rearrangement of courts as there were seven Crown Courts there. It was naturally extremely unpopular with them that they should be ejected.

"Lord Falconer came like Banquo's ghost to sort of explain the situation to them. He was pretty much booed at the time, but in retrospect it was the right thing to do."

Others were also upset about the move. Bingham, having had some uncomfortable experiences as a junior barrister at the court, was unimpressed, deeming it a lowly establishment that did not fit with the identity they were trying to create.

However, it was nothing that £57.6m of state funding could not help change, giving the Law Lords, who had formed a three-member committee to oversee the logistics of the move, substantial room to create the new court.

And there was a lot to create. Freed from the House of Lords' historical surroundings and myriad procedures, the Law Lords faced a truly blank canvas, leaving them to consider a whole set of new rules and conventions, from how the UK's most senior judges would dress (largely business attire apart from ceremonial occasions) to what their titles would be and what the symbol of the new court would look like.

The emphasis was on creating an identity or brand that would resonate with the public in a way that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords had not.

The new court was to gain enthusiastic advocates in the shape of Hope, who became a strong convert, and Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who in 2008 was appointed as the Senior Law Lord and the Court's first president.

Part of that identity was to be conveyed through its emblem (pictured) – the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act underpinning its creation had stipulated that the Supreme Court should have its own seal – which after much discussion saw the combination of all four of the UK's heraldic elements embraced by an almost-circular frame representing both Libra, the scales of justice, and Omega, symbolising the final source of justice for the UK.

The emblem is displayed throughout the building on its carpets in a bid to institute its theme.

Alongside Hope, Lady Hale took a lead on the design aspects of the building, which would be remodelled to include light open spaces, reinforcing the recurring theme of transparency and accessibility.

Incongruously, there was considerable wrangling over the Court's emblem – beyond an early consensus view that it could not include the cliched symbol of the scales of justice.

On a trip back to his home in Edinburgh, an artist acquaintance of Hope suggested representing the four parts of the UK via animals, an idea which was soon adapted into flowers.

If the image of senior judges worrying about such issues is hard to conjure, it should be remembered that a prime reason for the Court's creation was to underline its independence and create a stronger profile.

Hope reflects: "We were simply cast adrift. No one told us what to do. We had to construct this identity ourselves. Our own rules, what we were to wear – all of this was left for us to work out.

"It was quite liberating. It's like putting 12 people on a desert island and telling them to get on with it.

"The emphasis was on creating an identity. The idea was to make it as clear as possible to people that we were a United Kingdom court, different from any other court in the country and we were accessible to the public."

There was even a debate about what to call the judges. The transferring judges were Lords, but the Labour Government resisted calling new appointees to the Court the title, leaving the newly-promoted Appeal Court judge Sir John Dyson initially sticking out before coalition Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke was persuaded that everyone simply should be called Lord or Lady.

Not unsurprisingly, given the backdrop of the recession that was in full swing by the time of the Court's launch, not all of this was popular with those who saw such matters as a waste of money.

One silk's initial response when asked about the success of the Supreme Court is: "Has it been worthwhile spending £60m to set them up at a time when we were in deep recession?"

Phillips, however, counters this: "My personal view is that it was right to spend whatever was needed to produce a building that was suitable as Supreme Court of this country."

Yet the consensus view both within and outside the Court that has emerged is there has been real value in creating a more accessible and clearly presented Supreme Court, particularly in comparison to the choking procedures the Lords forced the Court to work with.

Phillips puts forward the rationale: "The basic idea was that the general public should understand what we do and they certainly didn't understand what the Law Lords were.

"Transparency has really been what we have aimed for in every respect. Almost within 48 hours, everyone was appreciating the benefits of coming into this building."

Says Hope: "The House of Lords was very constrained by its own rules. We were simply a committee in the Lords, which is very tightly regulated by tradition and by clerks who made sure you fulfilled your duties according to the standing orders. It turned out to be quite a confining situation.

"We've achieved a great deal simply by being relieved of the House of Lords, given our own building and allowed to develop our own methods of doing things."

Certainly, the new Court could not be faulted for its efforts to improve transparency, which did much to garner useful goodwill.

It created a user-friendly website and made strenuous efforts to swiftly put out not only full court judgments, but also carefully summarised press statements boiling down the key issues.

The new court quickly indicated its willingness to allow proceedings to be televised – in May 2011, Sky News began to stream live feeds of proceedings on the Court's website.

The Court has even built up a sizeable and growing audience for its Twitter account, which has won more than 14,000 followers since launching this year.

But the most symbolic commitment the Court made to a new age of transparency was its co-operation with lengthy documentaries produced soon after its launch with the BBC and Channel 4.

The former in particular unashamedly presented a personal side of the four judges interviewed: Phillips, Hope, Hale and Kerr; Hope was filmed shopping in a local supermarket; Kerr making his wife breakfast; Phillips cycling to work and playing tennis.

All in all, it was the kind of informality sure to horrify all judicial conservatives in the classic mould of Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor who in the 1950s had dictated that judges should be seen judging and nothing else.

Phillips, however, remains unabashed by this approach: "Not everyone agreed it was a good idea. Some felt that justices of the Supreme Court should be cyphers clothed in anonymity. Those that took part didn't agree with that.

"We thought it was better that the public see that justices of the Supreme Court are ordinary people leading ordinary lives.

"I thought [the documentaries] were very good. A number of people who came up to me said they really altered their perception of the Court. I don't think I had any adverse comments from anybody about those programmes."

It was just as well that this open-door approach was to win the Court plaudits as it would soon find no shortage of controversies.

Working in the spotlight

It has been clear for decades that a number of forces are pushing the judiciary towards areas in which they would inevitably have to deal with political controversies and charged policy decisions.

Few legal scholars contest that judges have taken a gradually more activist stance since the 1970s (admittedly in comparison to a historically conservative phase), while the use of judicial review has steadily risen since the 1980s.

Other major factors have complicated the role of the courts, including, of course, the UK's membership of the European Union, with the pooling of sovereignty and bringing the UK into the jurisdiction of Europe.

Labour further shook up the constitution with devolution in Scotland and the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which gave the courts the powers to declare Acts of Parliament incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, complicating the traditional view of the UK constitution as based on Parliamentary supremacy.

In addition, the courts have had to face additional factors, such as the huge increase in the amount and complexity of public and criminal law, much of it hastily drafted and causing problems for courts to apply.

All of these factors meant the UK's courts faced being drawn more regularly into thorny policy issues. And the global push towards tougher national security laws in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the 2005 London bombings meant that the Supreme Court was to face some highly contentious matters just at the moment when the new court, which had its share of detractors, was facing intense scrutiny.

This translated into many cases covering national security, immigration and human rights issues (indeed, some barristers grumble about the slant of appeals it takes, arguing there has been a dearth of commercial cases).

One example was when the Government implemented the Terrorism Order 2006, which allowed for any terrorist suspect's assets to be frozen. The Supreme Court declared it void in 2010 and it has frequently been referenced by the media as an illustration of an increasingly politicised court post-separation.

Within its first year, the Court had also ruled against the Government on the terms of a control order imposed on a suspected terrorist, a highly-sensitive judgment which provoked a sharp political response from the Labour Government.

A further brush with the political arena saw the Court in 2010 asked to rule on whether MPs accused of expenses fraud could claim Parliamentary privilege at the height of the row over MPs claims.

"[The Supreme Court Bench] obviously choose the cases that they take on, so if you look at what cases they are deciding, it gives you some idea about where they see the priorities," says Herbert Smith litigation partner Ted Greeno.

"A lot of the cases at the moment are to do with immigration and judicial review. Very few commercial cases are going to the Supreme Court."

This partly reflects the scope that the Court has to control which cases it hears since few cases come from the Court of Appeal with permission to appeal granted.

This means that the Court, in addition to hearing roughly 80 cases a year, must also review several hundred appeal applications annually.

The Court's work splits roughly 60%-40% between UK-related work and appeals from the Privy Council. The caseload from the Privy Council varies enormously, covering an established stream of commercial work from jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man and Guernsey, while Caribbean jurisdictions such as Jamaica generate criminal work.

Hope comments: "I'm very much in favour of the Privy Council jurisdiction. It provides a very real benefit to the jurisdictions that we serve. We don't want to be imperialistic – it's entirely up to the independent states whether they send their appeals here. There's a big debate about this in Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago, but it's up to them."

The judges often reach the Court by 8am, with the Court sitting usually at about 10.30am. By consensus, the physical separation of the judges from Parliament and their own Inns of Court means that the judges spend more time in their own company compared to the Law Lords (making some in the Bar complain about the relative insularity of the Bench).

With new cases, the judges typically have a 15-minute discussion before they hear it. After the hearing, the most junior member of the judges hearing the case expresses their opinion first, moving around in order of seniority.

A consensus view usually emerges and the presiding judge will decide who will write the leading judgment or ask for volunteers.

However, sometimes this is determined on the basis of specialism. Rulings typically take three months to be delivered after hearing.

Dyson says: "There are certain categories of cases that have someone's name written all over them  – tax, for instance, has usually tended to be Lord Walker.

"I tend to be thought of more for the public law side of things. It's not random."

Normally, cases are heard by five judges, though seven are put forward for particularly challenging, contentious or important cases. The Court has moved away from fielding nine, with the Supreme Court only doing so in a handful of cases, such as the December 2009 ruling in the Jews' Free School (JFS) case (R v The Governing Body of JFS – click here for more details).

If the JFS ruling – a highly charged one which turned on recognition of faith and admittance to a faith school – hit the headlines, there were to be other early judgments with wide social impact.

In October 2010 in Radmacher v Granatino, the Court for the first time recognised the enforceability of prenuptial agreements, in a ruling with wide significance for family law.

The Court was drawn into further controversy when several high profile rulings impacted on Scots law, including Cadder v Her Majesty's Advocate (Scotland), which provoked political outrage in Scotland over supposed interference from a 'foreign court'.

The thorny issues largely turned on application of wider European rights that impacted on criminal law, which is for most purposes outside the remit of the Supreme Court.

Hope, who holds one of the two places traditionally reserved for a Scots jurist, comments: "For the present, it's settled down now. There was a difficult period because arguments were being presented to us, which resulted in decisions taken by us that really did inject quite significant changes about the way Scottish criminal justice was being handled.

"The lawyers were all in favour of this, but politically it caused some dismay. The relationship is relatively settled now and everything will depend on the referendum [on Scottish independence]."

But such brushes with the headlines were a reminder that the Supreme Court has become a victim of its own success: a higher public profile means that the judges are now subject to far more personal scrutiny.

Dyson, one of the first appointees after the Court's launch, recalls the pressure he felt: "I was a bit surprised by how different I found it to the Court of Appeal because I thought it would just be more of the same. I puzzled over why this should be and I'm still not sure I know the answer.

"It may be that this is the ultimate court of appeal. So in the actual Court of Appeal when you had a really difficult case, you gave it your best shot but you knew that the likelihood was that it would go further and they could sort it out.

"There is a responsibility and this place is more in the public eye and the spotlight. It's very challenging."

A rising profile has inevitably meant more focus on the opinions, personalities and politics of the individual judges, with particular focus on what many regard as the strongly liberal stance of Lady Hale and the contrasting conservative instincts of incoming judge Lord Sumption.

An illustration of this was seen last year when Hale spoke out against the Government's legal aid cuts, stating that the move would have a "disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society". This was viewed at the time as a direct challenge to Government policy.

Hale again risked controversy in July this year after making an explicit call for new legislation to give greater rights to former cohabitants in England and Wales to receive financial support after a break-up in a judgment regarding a Scottish case (a position supported in the ruling by two other judges).

One silk highlights the appointment in July of Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger to the role of president – effective from October, as the retiring Phillips' replacement – as adding another potential political element to the line-up: "People think Neuberger is wonderful. But if you trace through his judgments, there is a real left-of-centre bias.

"That is why Sumption's appointment is so interesting – he is perceived as the most right wing on the Bench, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out."

Phillips argues that the impression of a more politicised Bench is largely media-fuelled, while conceding that scrutiny comes with the territory given the higher profile of the new court.

"Some people may think we are acting in a way that is more political, but we're not. I find it simply impossible to predict which way my colleagues will go in cases that raise difficult, finely-balanced issues. I don't know what my colleagues' politics are."

This is not a view entirely shared by experienced barristers and litigators, and while the Court's openness is widely praised, the related willingness of judges to speak out on issues – or give formal lectures – has caused unease among some.

This tension was illustrated by the substantial publicity and comment generated by the FA Mann Lecture delivered last year by Sumption, in which he argued vigorously against judges straying into policy decisions.

By the same token, unease over the strident nature of Hale's rhetoric is not just confined to the media – a product some argue of her academic background, which is still unusual given the higher courts' strong bias towards appointing practising advocates.

One QC with a top London set expresses not uncommon sentiments, saying: "I breathed a sign of relief that Hale didn't get the [president's job taken by Neuberger]. It would have been a disaster."

Critics of the Court also argue that it is not carrying quite the intellectual range as in the days of Bingham, Hoffman and Steyn.

A Bench divided?

If the higher profile of the new court has brought more focus on the personalities of its 12 judges, the issue that has excited probably the most critical comment are claims of disunity on the Bench.

Phillips argues that "the appearance of conflict is one that is to some extent produced by the media". However, there have been a number of judgments that have divided the Bench, as well as some fairly fractious language that has been noted by practising lawyers.

An example of this can be seen in Hale's lone dissenting judgment in Radmacher v Granatino, where for the first time the Supreme Court backed the enforceability of pre-nuptial agreements. The twist being that unusually it was the ex-wife, not the husband, who was trying to enforce the agreement.

It did not go unnoticed that it was the only woman on the Bench who dissented, a point Hale made forcibly by stating: "There is a gender dimension to the issue which some may think ill-suited to a decision by a court consisting of eight men and one woman."

One silk refers to the number of outspoken incidences, saying: "Hale is the thorn in the side of the Court."

Some point to the JFS case, which saw a Jewish man whose son was not given a place in the school because his wife was not regarded as Jewish take the school to court for discrimination and win with a majority of five to four in the Supreme Court.

But the most cited example of apparent discord came in the July 2011 judgment of McDonald v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, a challenge by a woman in long-term care to a local authority's decision to change the terms of her care during the night.

The appellant's case was dismissed by four to one, but Hale raised many eyebrows in legal circles with a strongly worded dissenting opinion.

Dyson reflects: "[McDonald] was one case in particular which caught the public eye and it was a case that frankly we never should have even taken because it didn't raise a point of public importance at all.

"Lady Hale took up a position that she felt very strongly about and expressed herself in language which others of us thought was a little extreme.

"I really regret that there was that public exchange in a judgment and the press gets hold of it and they say: 'Oh, look, what's going on here? It's a dysfunctional court.' It's a lot of nonsense."

Dyson maintains that claims of discord have been "wholly exaggerated" on the basis of "one or two cases", but he does concede that Bench unity is something that does need improvement: "I would like us to be more collegiate than we are."

However, while judges have a view of the unity not generally shared by the profession, in some regards such perceptions are the inevitable result of the new court's far greater transparency.

The requirement for the Law Lords to deliver 'speeches' in order of seniority rather than badging rulings on the basis of varying opinions meant it was a challenge to work out why a ruling was delivered, let alone if the judges agreed with one another.

"We're giving more collective judgments than we used to if you look at the statistics," says Phillips.

"We're also giving more joint judgments, even if they're not unanimous, than we used to.

"There has always been a case to just put in a single judgment. But if you look at that approach, you tend to find that the judgment is not that clear because it will have a bit of fudge in it to reach a compromise decision."

If there is more focus on the individual judges in the new court, greater scrutiny has heightened the focus on the continuing lack of diversity at the Bench, which is currently all-white and with only one woman.

Hale became the first and so far only woman to be appointed to the UK's top court in 2004. In the BBC documentary broadcast in January 2011, she commented on her appointment: "There does become a stage when it is embarrassing there is not a woman."

Phillips concedes: "It's very unfortunate that we don't have a more diverse Bench and particularly that we only have one woman out of 12 in the Supreme Court.

"Things are taking quite a while to change. There are various impediments to women staying in the profession and becoming judges which need to be removed.

"But I don't think anyone would suggest that the changes are going fast enough."

However, the feeling from some corners of the Bar is that these attempts to increase the number of female judges, particularly in the Supreme Court, are somewhat disingenuous.

One silk comments: "Mary Arden QC (Baroness Mance) was the other option to Sumption, apparently – would it not have been advantageous and less controversial to appoint her ahead of him?"

Sumption's appointment straight to the Supreme Court certainly attracted much comment. His appointment made him the first barrister since Lord Radcliffe and Lord Reid were elevated to the House of Lords more than 60 years ago to bypass full-time judicial office and go straight to the UK's highest court.

In the context of concerns regarding diversity and political views, the background of Sumption's appointment has undoubtedly caused unease in legal circles, despite his long-standing reputation as one of the Bar's finest civil advocates.

Also poorly received was his delay in taking up the appointment while he fulfilled a prior commitment to advise Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich (pictured) in his mammoth dispute with Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky before taking up his new role this January.

Phillips defends the appointment: "As I presided over the commission which appointed [Sumption], his appointment was one of which I approved.

"This Court is open to anyone with the necessary legal qualifications and it is right that anyone with those qualifications should be entitled to apply and be given consideration.

"It won't be very often that someone applies who has those qualities, even though those qualities do not include great judicial experience."

Despite attempts to brush over such issues, the consensus view from veteran advocates is that the Court has some work to do on forging a united Bench.

Much is riding on Neuberger – though he remains a very popular choice to lead the Court given a CV boasting strong administrative experience, a respected record as a jurist and a reputation as an effective leader and communicator.

Ironically, given that Neuberger famously criticised the creation of the Supreme Court ahead of its launch on BBC Radio as the "result of what appears to have been a last-minute decision over a glass of whisky", many expect him to build more bridges.

Securing the role in July ahead of Hale and Lord Mance, the former Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls is seen as a more clubbable head than the more remote Phillips.

Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf is one of Neuberger's many strong advocates, commenting: "[Neuberger] is a very forward-thinking judge. The Supreme Court will develop a more pronounced identity under his leadership. Neuberger has been a great success as Master of the Rolls. He is very good at leading a team. This is very important for a Supreme Court."

Reigning Supreme

In a speech to Exeter University one year after the launch of the Supreme Court, Lord Clarke, one of the first 12 Supreme Court justices in the new building, observed: "We are, I think, hoping that the school report on the first year will be 'Made a promising start, but room for improvement'."

As the Court reaches its third anniversary, similar sentiments are still in the minds of many lawyers, though it has become clearer since then the extent to which the Court has succeeded in creating a modern, open image.

When asked whether the Supreme Court has lived up to expectations, Phillips says: "I think it has. It has taken a long time.

"You still come across some people, or even drivers, who don't know what the Supreme Court is or where it is.

"But as I go around the country and talk to people, you find more and more people aware that we've got a Supreme Court and more or less what the Supreme Court is doing."

Matrix Chambers' Hugh Tomlinson QC says: "It has been a great success, although the Court is still feeling its way. I also think that steps should be taken to improve diversity by appointing outside candidates (eg, women academics, as has happened in Canada)."

Falconer, now a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, concludes: "I think it is very successful. The final court of appeal in this country now has a clear identity.

"The Supreme Court – particularly Lord Phillips and Lord Hope – have been very good at understanding the new identity in steps such as allowing the TV cameras in.

"The determinant of its continuing success will be getting the defining legal judgments right. But it is important for the standing of the law, and it's separateness from the other branches of the state that its most senior court is identifiable and visible as the final arbiter of legal disputes, and not as a part of another institution."

That is not to say that there are not substantive areas in which the Court can improve. With regard to judicial diversity, it is interesting that an issue that 10 years ago was being pushed by young lawyers and campaign groups now generates frustration from hardened silks and litigators, who believe the judiciary can do more to speed progress.

It also remains open to debate if senior judges have entirely taken on the implications of adopting a more open stance in which judges present themselves as ordinary people but also become more outspoken on general issues.

Given the far greater media platform and scrutiny of the Supreme Court compared to its predecessor, some feel that the judges have risked unsettling the delicate balance the modern jurist must maintain between accessibility and assuming policy influence.

Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court in its current incarnation has a somewhat more distant relationship with the Bar than the Law Lords. It is easy to see why many hope Neuberger can build some bridges. None of which is to decry the progress that has been made.

While critics derided the focus on presentational issues with the Court's creation, in retrospect it is hard to argue that the new tone of openness is not a considerable step forward and a laudable move towards engaging the public with the working of the courts.

In this regard, Phillips has an interesting legacy. Even if he divides opinion among the profession, his vision of a contemporary court has surely been a success.

And Phillips deserves personal credit for pressing ahead with that concept when many other senior figures were resisting such progressive steps.

With Phillips stepping down, the Court is facing a period of change. Practitioners are waiting to gauge the influence of Sumption and the incoming Neuberger; a replacement will have to be found for Dyson as he moves to take the Master of the Rolls position vacated by Neuberger, while deputy president Hope is set to retire next year.

The Court will certainly have its hands full with knotty legal and policy points, with a polarising new Justice and Security Bill moving through Parliament and challenges expected to proposals for secret courts and closed material proceedings in terrorist cases.

There will be substantial room for the UK's highest court to evolve – or be dragged into fresh controversy.

Assessing the past three years, Dyson reflects on his conversion from agnostic to Supreme Court true believer: "From the point of view of collaboration, it's a good place to be. Much better than the House of Lords. From the point of view of the public, there's just no comparison."

• Click here for more in-depth interviews with Lord Phillips, Lord Hope and Lord Dyson