At the start of this month the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords dissolved into history. Into its place stepped the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, complete with a smart building and a café.

The café is important: it symbolises that the court is open to the citizens who pay for it and who will now be able to see — at first or second hand — what goes on in the top court in the land. But is the new openness as far as the changes will go? That is at the heart of the topic for this year’s Times Law Awards, the student essay competition sponsored by One Essex Court, Supreme Court UK: radical change or business as usual?

Within the legal community there has been much debate about the move by the law lords across Parliament Square. As an exercise in judicious tidying up there is satisfaction that the UK is no longer subject to criticism because of an overlap between the legislature and the judiciary. In reality it was never a problem — the law lords scrupulously kept out of politics.

So as David Cavender, a barrister at One Essex Court, points out, the general presumption is that in the short term — despite the trappings of new status — we are unlikely to see a significant change in the judgments made by the Justices of the Supreme Court. In any case there has been no reluctance on their lordships’ part in recent years to pass robust judgments about matters of public law and human rights — often to ministers’ annoyance. But over time, might there be a change, either in the scope of the court’s pronouncements or tone? In short, will the new justices start to flex their muscles?

Of course, they have no new powers. Despite its name, the UK Supreme Court is not, like its American namesake, a constitutional court with power to strike down legislation. The UK still has no written constitution against which the justices can measure their judgments and they will operate by basically the same rules as before.

Does that mean it will be business as usual? Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who left the highest court to become Master of the Rolls, has warned of the law of unintended consequences. The rebranding of the court — building, name and the chance to modernise procedures — might, when allowed to mull and blend together, lead to something quite different. Or as Cavender puts it: “It could all go off in another direction.”

First, increased visibility is likely to lead to more attention being paid to those appointed, as Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the President of the court, acknowledges. The justices will be selected in a different way from the law lords: in time, will there be pressure for questioning of candidates in Parliament, a nudge towards an American-style confirmation hearing? And given the drive towards diversity in the judiciary, what of pressure for more women or ethnic minority justices and what difference could such changes have on rulings delivered?

Then there is the question of their decisions. Lord Phillips wants more single majority judgments. Historically the law lords gave individual and often very personal “opinions”, as they were called. So they may have reached the same conclusions but by different reasoning. This gave scope for much debate and sometimes uncertainty. But the justices now have to discuss more together and their views are cut and stitched to provide a more coherent whole, how will that affect the body of law they produce?

Finally there is the broadcasting of cases. Although matters of only wide-ranging significance will reach this level, this could have a significant impact on the public discourse of law. For a British public accustomed to the Punch and Judy performances in the House of Commons, it may come as a refreshing change to see issues of high importance considered in a sober, non-partisan and highly intelligent way.

All this public access will inevitably bring greater public scrutiny. As the top court in the land starts work in the public eye, its higher profile may, and maybe should, have an impact on society in ways not yet foreseen.

RULES

Please send your essay, typed and doubled spaced or clearly written, by November 30 to the Times Law Awards, c/o One Essex Court, Temple, London EC4Y 9AR; by fax to 020-7583 0118; or by e-mail to tla@oeclaw.co.uk.

PRIZES: First, £3,500; second: £2,500; third, £1,500. Three runners-up: £1,000 each. The results will be announced at an awards dinner next spring.

The competition is open to all students in any discipline registered with a UK educational institution except employees of One Essex Court, Times Newspapers and News International and members of their families. The Times and One Essex Court, the organisers, have the right to publish or reproduce at any time all or part of any essay entered for the awards. The essay must be the sole creation and original work of the entrant. The organisers reserve the right to delete or omit from any publicised essay anything that in their absolute discretion should not be published on editorial or legal grounds.

Only one entry per person will be allowed. All entries will be acknowledged but not returned. The organisers accept no responsibility for their safekeeping of essays and entrants are advised to keep a copy. The judges’ decisions will be final.

Times Recommends

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