They are seen by a handful of people dispensing justice in the courts and occasionally processing in ceremony at the start of the legal year. That apart, Britain’s judges are still the most hidden and inaccessible of the three arms of the State.

Yesterday though, the media — and through it the public — was afforded brief and rare access when Britain’s most senior judge gave his annual press conference. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, came with no particular message. The event was significant because it coincided with publication of his first review of the administration of the courts.

“My aim,” he writes, “is to increase public understanding of the role of judges, the way we do our job and our constitutional role.” Increased understanding of the principle of the independence of the judiciary and its impartiality would “help to set the context for considering that judges may properly do and what they may not do”.

There have been other reviews of the courts, such as the annual report of the Court of Appeal. This though is the first by the Lord Chief Justice, to Parliament and the Queen, comprehensively covering all issues of concern to judges — and giving a snapshot of the present workings of the justice system.

Its scope is far-reaching: from the condition of court buildings to pastoral care, complaints against judges to diversity. It spans both wider policy, such as the role of judges in Government initiatives to speed up the throughput of cases in the courts to the workload of judges and manpower needs.

So what does it reveal? First, that the judges, who now have their own civil servants and are in charge of their own training, deployment and discipline, have insufficient backup: what is required for the judges’ new responsibilities was “significantly underestimated”, Lord Phillips says. It reveals that the courts are severely understaffed as a result of a squeeze on funds (which has led to backlogs and delays, at Wandsworth County Court, for instance, there has been a 60 per cent staff turnover in 2006-07) and that data needed to run the courts efficiently is unreliable.

Specifically the High Court seems to be groaning under the weight of its workload — fuelled by a big increase in asylum and immigration cases:since 2004 the number of cases lodged in the administrative court that hears those appeals has risen by nearly 62 per cent, to 11,320. As a result delays are now “unacceptable” and claimants have to wait for 12 months or more.

All this, Lord Phillips told his press conference, would require increased use of deputy High Court judges and transfer of cases to be heard in the tribunals service.

As for the fabric of the 700 court buildings, Lord Phillips says that despite some new developments, the buildings are suffering from years being under-resourced: a maintenance backlog was £38 million in 2000 and has now reached £200 million — of which £90 million is required for urgent operational purposes, he writes. He cites Mr Justice (from this week Lord Justice) Stanley Burnton on Aylesbury Crown Court as “not fit for purpose”, noting that it is “frankly a disgrace that we retain such courts for use in the 21st century”. A new court has been sanctioned for Aylesbury but it will not be ready before 2011.

On top of that, Lord Phillips gives warning of the impact of the “considerable number of major terrorist trials” in the pipeline.

The report discloses that the Office for Judicial Complaints handled 1,674 during 2006-07 leading to three formal warnings, 13 reprimands and 16 removals from office — 15 magistrates and one tribunal member. It talks about the pastoral-care programme for judges, including mentoring for new judges and a welfare helpline.

The report is not an isolated event; it’s part of a wider move to open up. The judges’ press office, or Judicial Communications Office, puts out more and more judgments and judges’ sentencing remarks through its website and a media team of judges is being trained to speak on highly publicised issues. A website built for the Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed inquest that carries transcripts and evidence has attracted more than 70,000 visitors daily.

Senior judges now appear regularly before parliamentary committees — although Lord Phillips sounds a note of caution: such appearances should not become routine, he says, “lest the participation of impartiality is prejudiced and the proper boundary between the judiciary and Parliament is infringed”.

Judges also have to be careful about giving their views on the operation of the law or proposals for new legislation in case they find at a later stage that they are asked to adjudicate on an issue they have previously commented on. In future, he says, they may have to be more circumspect in speaking out at select committees.

The judiciary, in its new constitutional position with the Lord Chief Justice as its head and not the Lord Chancellor, has greater independence and — after a new framework agreed between Jack Straw and Lord Phillips — strength. But judges know that the other side of the coin is the need to be more open and accountable.

Press briefings, media spokesmen, annual reports are all a start; it would be shame if the judges’ tentative move on to a more public platform remained a brief walk-on part.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure