Seeing the new Supreme Court at work on television will satisfy a largely unfulfilled need among a British public fascinated by engaging legal stories and the business of judging. With cameras trained on the new justices, especially in highly publicised judicial review and human rights cases, the court’s role will be conspicuous and controversial.

But it is not the cameras in the courtroom that will make the justices act differently, where their performances could go out, live or recorded, to a wider audience. Under a new Supreme Court practice direction, there will now be a presumption that proceedings should normally be filmed unless there is some threat to the interests of justice.

The justices, and the senior civil servants who run the new court project, are well aware that the court needs to establish a public profile quickly. Even the court building, with its inscriptions in the glass reception of the judges’ oath, has the business of judging, quite literally, written all over it.

It's true that the majestic (albeit slightly “bling”) setting of the House of Lords chamber, where each law lord read out pithy headlines of judgments, made good telly. But it was under-used and never enough. No better example can be found than in the Purdy case on assisted suicide - the law lords’ last judgment that forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish prosecution guidelines for assisted suicide cases. The significant public interest in the case could have been better met if viewers could have watched snippets from the submissions of counsel.That should change now, at least in theory, as viewers can expect to see extracts of the oral arguments and key interjections of the justices feature in television news bulletins.

Cynics might call the display on television “two-way” sensationalism. But it is no more than communication. And the public is entitled to feel that it is a participant in the workings of the most powerful judicial tribunal in the UK. It has, after all, paid about £80 million building costs, through taxes, for the pleasure.

Televising the Supreme Court is bound to raise public awareness of, and support for, the judicial process, increase the call for more frequent user-friendly television commentary, and stimulate public analysis and discussion of how the legal system works. Supreme Court appeals are also generally free from the contempt of court and/or privacy issues that tend to affect reporting of lower court cases, particularly in the family sector or where juries are involved.

Above all, the same medium that can magnetise millions to spend their Saturday nights sitting in judgment on Strictly Come Dancing, at last can be deployed on the justices in the country’s new top court. This is television coverage that respects both the business of judging and the viewing, inquisitive public.

The writer is a legal commentator on television

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers