On one hand, the constitutional case was inarguable, and yet the grumbling regarding the launch three years ago of The Supreme Court still lingers to some extent, as we note in this week's In Depth. I'm not sure that's justified.

Dicey-admiring conservatives arguing against reform have always had rather too much fondness about constitutional arrangements that look bizarre from a distance but rub along fine.

The world moves on. And even aside from presentational niceties, it's become clear that there has been a real value to the creation of a progressive, accessible and transparent court.

Certainly, the Court's efforts to openly and quickly communicate are laudable and – for a working journalist – a world away from the Dickensian approach still in effect at most other courts in the country.

A televised, Twitterised and online Supreme Court has provided an invaluable resource to law students, legal writers of all walks and members of the general public interested in law. That matters.

What about that near-£60m refit? So what?! It's the highest court in the land in a major developed economy. When you factor in the huge global exportability and influence of English law, and its sizeable contribution to the domestic economy, the cost is hardly out of line.

That doesn't mean that the new court has had a perfect run. The criticism from the Bar and senior litigators about insularity on the Bench is understandable.

Ironically, as the Court has become more accessible to the man on the street, the profession has felt more distance. In many respects that's probably a healthy dynamic, but it does risk the judges losing some perspective.

Unsurprisingly, the three justices of The Supreme Court interviewed for our article make a compelling case for its creation and stance on a range of issues. But in some areas, such as diversity and the wider role of judges, there is room for a more self-critical position.

Supreme Court insiders are also, I think, mistaken in the view that claims of discord on the Bench are an entirely media-fuelled invention; there is an unease among hardened advocates and litigators on the issue.

In this regard, the new Court will largely just have to deal with the political realities of its far higher profile. The House of Lords' bewildering procedures made it difficult to ascertain why a judgment was made at all, let alone if the judges agreed with each other, while also shielding the court from controversy when ruling against the Government.

The Supreme Court's transparency and distinct identity means there will inevitably be more scrutiny of judgments… and the individuals that make them. Senior judges will likely take a while to grasp the full implications of that.

All of which is no more than growing pains for an important and evolving institution. It's been a good start.