Courting criticism: Cookery contests and court cases need same skills of adjudication

The criticism by Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger (Britain’s second senior-most judicial functionary) of a recent episode of a famous international cookery contest held in London’s historic Middle Temple attended by a formidable lineup of legal luminaries throws up an interesting question: justice is blind, but are judges meant to abjure use of all five senses, even outside the court? Prima facie, the presence of several Supreme Court judges, Lord Justices and high court judges among 230 people at the show does not necessarily reduce the Bench to the status of a kitchen stool.

Surely, rather than diminishing the dignity of his high office as Lord Neuberger implied, one judge by pronouncing a verdict on a fruit crème brûlée — and others of his ilk who have similarly defied the judicial convention of silence on private matters to elaborate on their home lives and hobbies — rose in the estimation of the very public whom they sit in judgment on by displaying their humanness.

Lord Neuberger’s points about judges “undermining their independence” by commenting on government policy and “devaluing their coinage” by giving too many speeches are, however, well taken and should strike a responsive chord in places beyond the British Isles.

It may be unfair to rule legal luminaries unfit for the Bench if they reveal their preferences on kitchen-counter intricacies such as properly-made puddings.

Judging a cookery contest requires much the same qualities as a court case, after all: a thorough knowledge of rules and procedure, an ability to discern how multiple inputs contribute to an ending and a keen eye for crucial inconsistencies and slip-ups. These are also probably the very qualities, after all, which make judges favourites for postretirement re-employment in diverse exalted posts.