On 13 January 2026, the Government launched its controversial TikTok page ‘SecureBordersUK’ depicting the deportation and/or removal of migrants.[1] At the same time, the Attorney General has established a Youth Ambassador’s programme for young people to become champions of the Rule of Law within their communities.[2] Then, in the panel discussion on ‘Why Trust Matters?’ on 29 January 2026, Lord Reed observed that social media and AI presented challenges for the Supreme Court to be better understood by the public. All these events reveal a theme; connection with the public needs a new approach for the modern age and the Rule of Law is no different.
By Saara Idelbi, Barrister at 39 Essex Chambers
The need for this connection could not be better exemplified than by the House of Lords’ Select Committee on the Constitution’s report ‘The Rule of Law: holding the line against tyranny and anarchy’, which notes the declining confidence, and the damage to trust, in the Rule of Law that has been exacerbated by social media.
Lord Reed had voiced a tension that I have been mulling over for some time: social media derives its success from emotional hacking when the courts are not – or at least not meant to be – an emotions business. The latter prizes rationality, reasoning, precision and accuracy. The former rewards attention capture, turbulence and virality – never before has there been a way to disseminate information at such speed with unfathomable reach.
How can the emotional rubric of social media be countered to improve trust in public institutions and, importantly, the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law in Legalistic Terms: Speaking Past the Public
The Rule of Law as lawyers know it was, arguably, first articulated in an age of limited literacy and equality. It remains a matter of curious amusement to me that the Magna Carta is held in such high esteem in the anti-establishment discourse when – on the text and historical context – the agreement concerned the rights of landed gentry vis-à-vis the king with no definition of the ‘free men’ (a modern contract lawyer would surely roll their eyes).
The Rule of Law has been explored through the age of print media, the distribution of which accelerated over 500 years; a leisurely stroll compared to social media’s growth since the 1990s.
The rise of social media reflects the technological advance and societal shift of the modern age. The baseline of education and minimum standards of living have changed. Information has become increasingly available, and with it the expectation of immediacy.
Nevertheless, despite the Plain Language Movement ushered in by the Woolf reforms, the Rule of Law debate typically remains in language inaccessible to most people.[3] This lack of accessibility creates another tension. The Rule of Law exists for all (and all have a role to play in upholding it), but its articulation excludes many from the conversation.[4]
And that is if the individual has the time, knowledge, or mental bandwidth to seek it out. The reality of the modern age for many is the cognitive overload of austerity and the rising cost of living. We recognise that preoccupation with meeting survival needs leaves little room for anything else, not least the defence of a concept that remains the subject of debate among legal scholars.
Most people may understand and support the tenets foundational to the Rule of Law (fairness, equality, accountability, and independent adjudicators). Why then is it a struggle for the institutions of the Rule of Law – for these purposes, I mean the courts – to speak to, and not past, the public?
A Vacuum: Who Speaks for the Judiciary?
The first, most obvious reason is that, beyond the courtroom, the judges cannot speak directly to the public. It would be unkind to lay the blame at the foot of the judiciary for the constitutional convention that prevents them from discussing cases. Nor do I think such convention is wrong.
However, this constitutional convention has left a vacuum that has been readily filled with attacks that pit the judges against the interests of citizens (e.g. memorably in the ‘Enemies of the People’ front page following the Miller judgment).
The ‘us’ and ‘them’ culture is perpetuated by:
- Personal attacks on judges (rather than their decisions) by those who should respect the structure of the Rule of Law, such as the politicians or – from another purported truth industry – journalists.
- The lack of access to judges/courts due to austerity’s corrosive effect on the parts of the justice system with which the public are most likely to have contact: backlogs in employment tribunal cases,[5] deep cuts to legal aid in family cases,[6] court closures and underfunding of the criminal justice system.[7]
- The law’s perceived deference to political institutions, that have developed reputations for failing to serve the public well (police mishandling of cases, children’s services’ failure to save toddlers, hospital discharge of patients in need), without commensurate deference to matters styled to be of public important (Brexit or immigration).
The law that is applied can be changed by Parliament, and the judiciary applies the law as it is (or best interpreted to be) but, the average non-lawyer may be unable to distinguish application from the applicant. What is left is a residual deep emotional belief that the system does not have their back. They are alone. And loneliness can be devastating for them and the Rule of Law.
Because the modern age compounds the loneliness. Social media is fertile ground for distraction by short-form, emotive narratives by offering the appearance of solidarity (in shared outrage or tempting false comfort) whilst segregating people into algorithmically curated echo chambers. The loneliness is experienced as distrust and disconnection from a real community, occluded in belonging to a digital tribe. That makes it harder to address and more corrosive to the collective trust on which the Rule of Law depends.
The Attention Economy and the Structural Mismatch
Herein lies the problem.
I often tell non-lawyers that accompany me to court that law is not a spectator sport. The machinery of law is slow. Is dry. Is particular. It needs the detail.
Yes, those who appear in court largely prefer the detail being considered. But it makes for bad entertainment.
Before you rebuke me with the array of legal TV dramas, you must concede that the hours reading, drafting, preparing, and persuading are condensed into a pleasing montage or a momentary earth-shattering cross-examination.
Given that AI summation tools insist that 20 pages is a long document, a judgment capable of reaching 100 pages (sometimes more) is unlikely to grip someone on their way home from work. Short form media is just more appealing.
The speed of information distribution cycles is structurally mismatched. A judgment that took months to produce can be mischaracterised in a 60-second video. The memory of the latter can never truly be overridden by a correction, buried in an unengaging corner of the publisher’s platform (if at all).
Whilst the Supreme Court’s press summaries must be applauded for making judgments more accessible, the infrastructure is also mismatched. A judgment (or press summary) that appears on the judiciary.uk or Supreme Court site requires the motivation to search for and find it, read it and digest it.
The age of information has moved past the old ‘noticeboard’ style of the early internet. One cannot counter emotional hijacking with a sign. How then can one then counter high emotional intensity for a slow and deliberate machine that is meant to uphold the Rule of Law?
Meeting People Where They Are Without Losing What Matters
What then? A ‘SecureBordersUK’ TikTok approach? Absolutely not! Such sacrifices rationality that risks damaging the Rule of Law in a different way. Judges on TikTok are not likely to be the answer.
But, along the Attorney General’s ambassador’s programme, there is a kernel of legitimacy. We as a profession, as an industry, need to be proactive, not reactive. We need to meet people where they are; not expect them to come to defend the Rule of Law.
Firstly, though obvious, the Rule of Law for the modern age requires investment. A functioning system speaks for itself to those who are in contact with it.
Secondly, the Rule of Law needs a better publicity from the courts and its officers (us).
How?
Have we forgotten?
The stories of law are tales of emotion. ‘Mr Bates v the Post Office’ exemplifies the power of stories in generating interest in the Rule of Law with the increased reporting on the Post Office Inquiry.
Rather than television programmes on the life of a judge, the public needs the tales of everyday life that are relatable and resolved by the courts in a manner built for them.
Law students are telling the tales of the cases they are studying on social media in diverse and entertaining ways. There are some lawyers on the visual social media platforms. There is scope for expansion. Exposure may be affected by the algorithms but, the popularity of politicians’ pages and the rise of the ‘intellectual influencer’[8] confirms that the public want to know more.
Perhaps we need the press summary reloaded; videos/short-form media that engage attention by telling the real stories and communicating judgments, accessibly.
Does that not denigrate the qualities that make the Rule of Law worth defending (reason, accuracy, impartiality)? I argue not:
- If a press summary does not dilute the accuracy of a judgment, how can it be said that video or short form would do? Many had similar complaints about blogs before they became prolific among practitioners to share information.
- Speed of information is essential to counter the virality of social media, the detail can follow. Timing does not alter the truth of the decision. Ultimately refusing to engage with the shift in information dissemination has left the Rule of Law vulnerable. Shunning short form media deepens the perceived divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
- A truth unheard offers the Rule of Law no greater defence than a lie.
Advocates are taught to adapt for your judge, your jury. Connection is about meeting the other person’s style of communication and reaching understanding. The Rule of Law in the modern age needs to speak with its community in the ways the latter does. After all, if one of the pillars of the Rule of Law is that all are equal before it; then surely it should be equally understood by all, particularly where the Rule of Law needs all to walk alongside and defend it.
Saara Idelbi, Barrister at 39 Essex Chambers
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/home-office-tik-tok-secure-borders-b2899460.html.
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/attorney-generals-youth-ambassadors-programme.
[3] Evidence to the HOL select committee from Professor Adam Tomkins.
[4] Evidence to HOL select committee from the Constitution Society, justice, Dr Mark Ryan, Zana Jeppenlatz, Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research.
[5] https://data.justice.gov.uk/courts/tribunals.
[6] https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/756d3310-cec8-456e-bfcb6bf75e7cb89b/System-overload-a-report-on-family-legal-aid.pdf.
[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-2.
[8] https://secondglancewrites.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-intellectual-influencer.