The UK Supreme Court judge talks transparency, 'theatrical' performances and finding a new home for the Court to Suzanna Ring and Alex Novarese

On the Supreme Court's creation

I was rather against the move because I felt we would become isolated. As it is, I have been pleasantly surprised by the benefits that have come our way. It's become clear that the Supreme Court has acquired an identity of its own which was difficult to find when we were members of the Lords.

On finding a new court

There was a lot of discussion about where we were to go. I remember saying that we were being told to leave the building with nothing more than what we were dressed in. Lord Bingham said there is one rule that must be applied: the new court must be within one mile of Charing Cross.

[When first visiting the current site] The place looked a complete dump, frankly, and we were all very depressed. But the Government was prepared to spend what turned out to be a generous amount of money on refurbishing the building, and the architects made some inspired choices. So we now have a very acceptable building whose main characteristic, compared with our accommodation in the House of Lords, is its accessibility.

The House of Lords was very inaccessible. The place where we sat was hard to find because of security and the sheer size of the Palace of Westminster. Here we have a quite different set-up. We have removed security clutter at the entrance to the minimum. A lot of thought was given to the atmosphere and to the uncluttered feeling of the entrance to make our place look and feel quite welcoming.

On transparency

We are quite comfortable with [being televised] as an idea. What we do is all appellate work, and it's useful for people to be able to see what we do. We have a much greater emphasis now on how we present our judgments.

We try to group them in a case where there is a difference of view so that the majority view goes at the beginning, the dissents at the end and it is made clear who agrees with whom. In the Lords, we had to obey the rules and you didn't say what the case was about.We issue press releases which explain what the judgment is about, and when we give judgment we give a rather more informal explanation of the case and its main points.

I remember looking at the video of our last seven judgments and I simply have no idea now what we were talking about. It was a theatrical performance, but in retrospect the lack of information for the observer was absolutely extraordinary.

On the most challenging cases

Asylum cases are very difficult because one is conscious of huge numbers of people who are coming from areas of the world that are extremely dangerous. We have to take decisions in individual cases that will have an effect on many similar cases, but there are some quite horrifying threats that people are exposed to.

On working life

I really spend all my time in London working. One thing that really keeps you going is variety. Each week is really quite significantly different, and the cases are extremely interesting and very varied. You feel you are working as part of a thoroughly good team. Those are the things that make the job so enjoyable. That fact that there's no time for private life until I go back home to Edinburgh each weekend doesn't really worry me, because the job is so enjoyable.