Our age-old checks and balances are tried and tested and should not be called into question

In over 50 years of doing this job, I've developed a certain pride in the way the British press, by and large, has behaved and carried out its task of reporting, analyzing and entertaining its readers, and I've played my modest role to the best of my ability.

But outrageous attack on the three High Court judges on Nov 4 who ruled unanimously against the government by saying Parliament should have the right to say when, if and how Article 50, the trigger clause that starts the UK's exit from the European Union, should be implemented, was for me a step too far.

The system under which this country operates, and has done for centuries, is based on a parliamentary model, a free press and an independent judiciary.

That last part is particularly pertinent, as there is no written UK constitution; instead, the law embodies a wealth of legal precedents reached in the highest courts in the land, acts of Parliament, conventions and, of course, parts of the Magna Carta, written back in the 12th century by a group of noblemen concerned that the monarchy was getting out of hand.

The press is largely self-regulating, operating as it does under the strict laws of libel and slander that are in effect in the UK.

The article that incensed me was a dreadful piece in the Mail Online, full of hints and innuendo, on the personal traits of the High Court judges who ruled in the Article 50 case.

They had been asked by a group of private citizens who had become concerned that the government was using an arcane rule known as the Royal Prerogative to railroad through - without any direct involvement of Parliament - the process of leaving the EU.

As was the group's right, they sought what is called a judicial review of the government's decision.

So far, so good. Leaving the EU has become a hugely divisive and contentious issue, and for the right-wing Daily Mail and the equally right-wing Daily Telegraph, both keen advocates of leaving, the judges' decision was tantamount to interfering with the will of the people.

One of the enduring factors in Britain's survival over the centuries has been the establishment of a free and independent judiciary.

We don't elect our judges, and they are not seen to represent any particular party or faction. They are truly independent. Their job, pure and simple, is to uphold the law without fear or favor.

If you disagree with a verdict, well, you can always appeal to a higher court.

The High Court judges, in delivering their verdict, made it crystal clear that their job was to review the government's decision against the background of law and precedent - political comment and bias didn't come into it. Yet the Mail Online and the Telegraph and other publications seemed to insinuate that the judges' personal backgrounds had influenced their decision.

I have never seen the like.

The government of Prime Minister Theresa May has come in for some stick, as well. Critics described its reaction as lukewarm and muted.

Ministers, including May, went out of their way to stress that in addition to an independent judiciary, the country's governing system depends on a free press.

Lord Chancellor Liz Truss, who is responsible for, among other things, maintaining the independence of the judiciary, came in for strong words from commentators and legal experts for not criticizing outright the personal attacks on the judges involved in the High Court decision.

Of course, not all papers were guilty. But it's a trend in the British media I don't much care for.

Chris Peterson is managing editor, Europe for China Daily. Contact him at chris@mail.chinadailyuk.com

(China Daily European Weekly 11/11/2016 page11)