Judith answers our questions about her experiences engaging the public.

Could you tell us a little bit about who you are and the research that you do/your role in SAS?

I am director of the recently launched Centre for Law and Information Policy at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), part of the School of Advanced Study (SAS). Our area of interest is ‘information law and policy’, or put another way, law and policy as it relates to the control and flow of information and data in society.

The Centre has quite a broad title, but we plan to specialise in certain areas that affect the wider public’s, as much as academics’ and lawyers’, everyday activity:  data protection, misuse of private information and freedom of information, for example. Also, and this has a particular relevance to public engagement, we are interested in the way that specifically legal information is communicated to the public: through the courts and parliament, in private practice, by media and legal information organisations. The way that information about law reaches the public is quite haphazard: through a piecemeal system of communication that is heavily reliant on a number of third parties, many commercial. There are lots of things that could be done to improve public understanding and awareness about law.

What public engagement activities have you been involved with in the School?

The new Centre has only just officially launched, but it’s already been quite busy. In November 2014, shortly after I joined the School, I organised the Humanity of Judging event at the Supreme Court, part of the Being Human festival. The idea was to give the public an insight into the courts process with a free guided tour of the court (normally there is a small fee), and hear about the human side of judging from an expert panel of three legal academics and a Deputy High Court Judge, chaired by a Justice of the Supreme Court. I also took part in the Human Library during the festival in which we discussed our specialist interests with members of the public in the wonderful Senate House Library, although I think I learned as much from them as they learned from me about their experiences and views of social media and the law. Most recently we launched the Centre with two public events in February.

The Human Library

Human Library

In a digital age, human custodians and communicators of knowledge are more important than ever. This event will create a ‘human library’ where, instead of taking down books from shelves, visitors are given an opportunity to engage with academics one-to-one.

The event will feature  communicators of knowledge from across the School of Advanced Study, its libraries, and its research networks, offering an opportunity for the public to receive a personal 10- minute lecture on some of the leading research in the humanities. The event also features elements of film and animation that will bring the collections housed in Senate House to life.

Come along to borrow some of the following ‘books’ from our living library of the humanities:

  • Dr Richard Espley (Senate House Library) - Oceans of Knowledge
  • Dr Alessandro Scafi (Warburg Institute) – Maps of Paradise
  • Professor William Fitzgerald (King’s College London) -  How to Read a Latin Poem
  • Professor Philip Murphy (Institute of Commonwealth Studies) – Writing About the Queen
  • Professor Robin Gauld (School of Advanced Study) – Humanising Health Service Design
  • Professor Catherine Davies (Institute of Modern Languages Research) – Women Warriors in Latin America (and the Elephant and Castle)
  • Judith Townend (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) – Social media and the law
  • Dr Matthew Beaumont (University College London) - Nightwalking in London
  • Professor Barry Smith (Institute of Philosophy) - The Philosophy of Taste

The Humanity of Judging

An evening at the UK Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, the UK's highest judicial authority, plays an important part in the development of United Kingdom law and British society. The impact of its decisions, and those of other senior appeal courts, extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping society, and directly affecting everyday lives - and the notion of 'being human'.

Judges apply and interpret the law by using processes of logic and reason, but does their own unique character and life experience make a difference? To what extent can we expect judges to turn off their humanity when performing their role? This special evening organised by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and the Supreme Court, as part of the Being Human Festival, will offer participants a tour of the court followed by a discussion on judging in the 21st century.


  • Chair: Lord Carnwath, Supreme Court Judge and chair of the Advisory Council of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (IALS)
  • Alexandra Marks, Recorder and High Court Deputy judge / Judicial Appointments Commissioner
  • Dr Lawrence McNamara, Deputy Director & Senior Research Fellow, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law
  • Professor Leslie Moran, Principle Investigator, Judicial Images Network, School of Law Birkbeck
  • Professor Erika Rackley, Professor of Law, Birmingham Law School

Why do you think it is important for researchers to get involved in public engagement?

It makes no sense to me to keep public research away from the public

how can that be justified, especially when it is publicly funded? And on a topic such as law, which is relevant to every member of society, it seems to me imperative that legal academics help digest and explain law to a wide audience – through public events, media contributions, open access journals and blogs. Of course, private interviews, writing for specialist audiences and closed roundtables have their place, as a valuable part of academic research, but I’m glad to see an increasing emphasis on engaging the public in the arts and humanities (including law) – not least through the Being Human festival!

What have been the three most challenging experiences while undertaking public engagement activities?

Number one, without a doubt: is calculating attendance numbers. When it’s a free event, it is likely that a significant proportion will drop out (of course I have also been guilty of this on occasion!). Number two: pitching the tone and level appropriately. I thought our launch speaker, Timothy Pitt-Payne QC got it spot on with his talk asking ‘Does privacy matter?’, giving enough context to keep a mixed audience engaged, while not boring the specialists in the field. Number three: cost and time. There’s no such thing as a free lunch – someone’s got to pay, and events organisation takes up a lot of time. Even if you don’t offer refreshments, ensuring a good diversity of speakers could be expensive (providing travel for those outside London, paying a fee to freelancers, for example).

What have been the three most rewarding things that you’ve taken from public engagement?

One: I really enjoy the buzz of putting on a lively event and the interaction with attendees. Two: the pre and post-event conversations via email and social media, and swapping of information, which enriches research. Three: I especially enjoy seeing public contributions shape academic and media debate. While there are some undesirable aspects to digital communication that present specific legal and ethical challenges, the internet also makes academia far more democratic and accessible. It means that narratives can be challenged and new information unearthed. The digital conversation around the UK Human Rights blog is a great example of this, involving a range of participants and improving public understanding of incredibly important but complex legal topics.

Do you think that getting involved in public engagement has helped your research? If so, how?

I have always tried to take a fairly open approach to my research and as a result so many useful people have got in touch, with helpful comments, interesting invitations and suggestions for working together. So far my experience of academia has been far from the lonely experience I was warned about before starting my PhD.  Proponents of ‘open’ journalism have long recognised that sharing the journalistic process as well as the product can yield rich social rewards (not necessarily economic!); I think academics can learn something from this.

Read on: A video of the launch lecture for the Centre for Law & Information Policy by Timothy Pitt-Payne QC on ‘Does privacy matter? Is available here. A report from the Humanity of Judging event for the Being Human festival is available in a previous post on the Information, Law and Policy Centre blog. You can also follow the centre on Twitter: @infolawcentre.