The riddles of media law never cease to amaze.

Politicians enact a law imposing new restrictions on court reporting.

A judge says judicial freedom from political interference depends on press freedom, particularly in court reporting.

A second says there are too few journalists reporting the courts.

A third judge says reporting restrictions take the human interest out of stories, which may result in fewer people buying newspapers and lower profits – and no doubt even fewer journalists reporting the courts to bolster judicial independence against political interference.

Meanwhile, the media continue to be ensnared in a rash of reporting restrictions and privacy injunctions.

The point about judicial freedom was made last month by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, in a speech to the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association Conference.

He said judges could not afford to be divorced from the modern media because of the media’s “impact on public thinking and public perception”.

He said: “One of my constant refrains is that our judicial independence and the existence of an independent press are mutually self supporting.

“I ask you to find me a society or state in which you have an independent judiciary and a subservient media, or a subservient judiciary and an independent media.

“The short answer is that the pressures that would remove the independence of the judiciary are identical to the same pressures that would remove the independence of the media.”

He continued by endorsing the right of reporters to challenge inappropriate reporting restrictions themselves in court.

Judge Patrick Moloney QC, a circuit judge who used to be a top libel barrister, then voiced concern about the lack of open reporting of the courts.

In a speech he gave to a media law conference, he said: “The time-honoured old art of court reporting, even in the Crown Court, let alone of course the County Court, is dying away.”

He was subsequently reported as saying there was no point in judges making lofty pronouncements in court for the benefit of society if no one “ever hears about it because there is nobody in court to hear us say it”.

It’s not often that the symbiotic relationship between a free press and an effective, independent judiciary is so frankly admitted.

The judges’ comments bring to mind a string of recent judgments that have highlighted the desirability for court reports and journalism in general to contain real names and personal details so as to be interesting and readable.

In a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year which lamented that litigants’ names in a case had been anonymised into “an alphabet soup” of mere initials by reporting restrictions, Lord Rodger said: “A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form, devoid of much of its human interest could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on.

“Ultimately, such an approach could threaten the viability of newspapers and magazines, which can only inform the public if they attract enough readers and make enough money to survive.”

It is unfortunate, then, that reporting of the family courts system – which benefitted last year from tentative moves to allow reporters access – looks set to become even more restricted than ever, if restrictions in the recently passed Children Schools and Families Act 2010 are implemented.

At the conference where he complained court reporting was a dying art, Judge Moloney QC described this Act’s restrictions as “potential overkill”, while specialist barrister Adam Wolanski said the statute was “very complicated, very dense, unhelpful and badly drafted”.

With such siren voices raising the alarm, court reporting clearly faces malaise.

But despite the frequent restrictions and Parliament’s clumsy forays, it is at least refreshing to learn that some judges see fundamental importance in the role played by court reporters in delivering open justice.

And if the idea that press freedom is inextricably linked with judicial freedom gains some traction, courtroom battles for freedom of expression may become easier to win.