Judicial Individuality on the UK Supreme Court By Lewis Graham. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2025, 304pp (£85.00 hardback) ISBN 978-1-50997-110-7

Who our judges are matters.The reasons for this are well rehearsed. 1 It matters because everyone should have an equal opportunity to become a judge regardless of who they are.It matters because a diverse judiciary, which is representative of society, has greater democratic legitimacy.Finally, it matters, we are told, because a more diverse judiciary produces better quality decision-making as a variety of perspectives are considered. 2So much is true.But who our judges are also matters because once we accept this, we have to let go of Lord Reid's fairytale judge: the judge hidden in Aladdin's cave and keeper of the 'magic words'. 3This is nothing new.For some time now, it has been generally accepted that, in Lord Reid's words, 'for better or for worse judges do make law'. 4 And if this is trueand I think it isif judges are, at least on some occasions, making law, then who these individual judges are matters.Which brings us to Lewis Graham's book: Judicial Individuality on the UK Supreme Court. 5 Graham starts from the position that judicial neutrality is impossible. 6Judges, he suggests, are human with their own 'values, preferences, ideologies, ideas and biases'. 7 And, just like the rest of us who often bring our own life experiences into account when making decisions, it is 'impossible to imagine that judges' do not do the same. 8 In other words, judges bring their individual preferences into their decision-making and so into their judgments. 9This is not controversial.However, Graham seeks to push this further, revealing not only that judges do this but, more interestingly, characterising and determining the extent and impact of their individuality on their decision-making.The result is a significant contribution to the growing literature on judicial studies. 10 Focusing on the UK Supreme Court during its first decade, Graham seeks to identify not only which preferences have more influence on the Justices and how this influence might be measured, but also how