THE reaction of Brexiters to the court hearings on Article 50 has been a pretty unpleasant spectacle. Certain tabloids, a few commentators who should know better and some of the Brexit ministers themselves have characterised the case as undemocratic and an insult to the voters who supported leaving the EU. Some of the more extreme advocates of Brexit have even suggested the judges are biased.

Now that the case has reached the Supreme Court, the president Lord Neuberger has directly addressed the furore by announcing restrictions on what can be printed. He has done so, he says, because some individuals involved have been threatened and abused.

In his statement, Lord Neuberger also defended the role the courts have played and rejected the idea that the judges are trying to thwart the will of the people. The judges will decide the case not according to political creed, he said, but according to the law.

Lord Neuberger’s statement will not be well received by many Brexiters, but what he says is in accordance with the constitutional role of British courts which can, and must, hold the Government to account when necessary. Had Theresa May prevailed, the UK Government would have been able to start the Brexit process without consulting Westminster, let alone the devolved parliaments, and we should be thankful for the small group of activists who had the determination – and the money – to fight the Government in court.

The Supreme Court’s job now is to rule on the correct procedure and issue its judgment without fear or favour, not to take a view on whether Brexit itself is right or wrong. Some Brexiters say the fact the Government has been taken to court is a threat to democracy and a dangerous moment in our constitutional history. But in reality it is just the opposite – the court case proves that, in a moment of crisis, our constitution is working exactly as it should.