There is nothing constitutionally improper in a Chief Justice speaking publicly outside her Court on matters of vital concern to the administration of justice. In the UK, from where we draw our conventions, senior judges have been much more prone to lecturing the government recently.

But nothing is costless. The courts and justice will pay the price in disrespect if the judges are not obviously being wise, and confining their comments to matters on which they are expert. Stray into political partisanship, or even criticise politicians even-handedly, and judges can expect to be treated like politicians.

In the UK there is open hostility between the government and the judiciary, as a once revered criminal justice system decays. It helped deliver some of the lowest crime rates and most free and civil societies in the world. Now the average UK citizen is at substantially greater risk of burglary and violence than US citizens. And our figures are worse.

Our Chief Justice quite properly complains that there are not enough probation officers to run community based sentences. She should speak out about the Executive’s failure to deliver psychological and drug and alcohol treatment  ordered by the courts.

There is nothing wrong in hand-wringing over the increase in prison musters. Our serious violent crime rate is a proper matter for court anguish. But genuine leaders only indulge in hand wringing when they have some necessary but unpalatable solutions to impose.

Our charming and intelligent Chief Justice has raised those matters, but her only ‘solution’ is for the state to declare surrender to criminals, more ‘interventions’ and ‘fences at the top of the cliff’. Her poorly researched speech offers nothing that was not heard ad nauseum in 1960’s idealistic party meetings and university common rooms (and parroted by me in my days as a member of the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society).

Instead of looking for evidence of what works she’s endorsed the maudlin sentiment of Shirley Smith, another kind and well-meaning but dotty lawyer.

There is good evidence on what works, from countries which have dramatically cut their crime rates. Foremost among them are speed and certainty of consequence. The evidence is clear. The only thing likely to alter our trajectory to having the longest sentences and the highest crime rates is well founded knowledge among those tempted to offend that crime will not pay. Criminals are gambers. Offer them uncertainty, and they’ll back themselves to win the lottery. So the CJ’s speech is lamentably damaging.

She has her own stables to clean, when on her watch the average delay to trial has doubled, the average length of defended trials has more than doubled, the number of judges has tripled over the last 30 years, and the cost of justice is putting it out of reach of all but the rich and those who qualify for legal aid.

The convention that politicians reinforce public respect for the courts was recently strengthened. In a sorry piece of Parliamentary self mutilation the Privileges Committee succumbed to the temptation to slap Heather Roy on the hand. Parliamentarians strenthened their self-tied gags on commenting in Parliament on matters before the courts.

Revisiting that stupidity might be one good outcome of this sad episode.