The moment I heard that a Supreme Court judge had taken a pop at journalists, I knew what he'd be like. As soon as I heard the same judge had described female journalists as "cowgirls," I was dead sure.

This judge had to be a gouty auld fella with no understanding of the daily deadlines journalists have to meet and even less appreciation of the complexity of the task of the court reporter.

This old judge had to have been so long in the robes and the wig, he'd lost touch with human realities, assuming he'd ever been in touch with them. He'd probably grown up with his nose stuck in a legal tome, immune to the excitements of life, the media, politics and the rest of life outside the courts.

And then I learned who the judge had been. Adrian Hardiman. Adrian Hardiman called female court reporters "cowgirls"? Amazing. Because this is no fossilised old geezer without a clue about the real world.

Adrian Hardiman was heavily involved in politics in his younger days. First in Fianna Fail, then in Fine Gael. He was the equivalent -- for his time -- of Leo Varadkar from Team Enda: lucid, argumentative and to the right of Attila The Hun.

Sparky

If you put him on a radio or TV programme, sparks would fly and listeners/ viewers would be attracted to the show.

I encountered him when he had become a senior counsel. I'd managed to accidentally libel a little old lady in one of my books.

"I'm so upset over the pain I've caused her," I told him. "I'd like to go around to her house and apologise personally."

He didn't waste time on that suggestion, simply vetoed it. Then took me through the details of the case, told me the action he proposed to take and the outcome I could expect, and that was it. Businesslike. Effective. (If expensive.)

I had no sense that Hardiman, SC, had any great prejudice against media. Nor do I believe Hardiman, as a Supreme Court judge, has a general prejudice against court reporters.

What I do believe is that judges become amazingly injudicious when they address social gatherings.

It happens again and again. They're among friends. They're not surrounded by the pomp and circumstances of their normal day. They're talking without the obligation to be measured. At the back of their head is a long-standing irritation. So they let fly.

The end result is almost always the same: headlines and furious reactions from whatever group the judge has criticised. The point the judge thought he was making gets lost in the fury of the opposition, and nothing gets achieved at the end of the day.

Adrian Hardiman clearly believes that the coverage of court cases is inadequate. Initiating contact with the academic institutions training journalists, with their trade unions or with their editors, and collaboratively addressing the issue with them would clearly be a good way to go, if he really wants to change things. If that approach is proper, for the judiciary.

A sudden outburst enlivened with phrases like "cowgirls," simply annoys people. Pointlessly. No improvement results.

And, since improvement is always possible, that's a pity, M'lud.

- Terry Prone