A good rule in life is never get into a dispute with the master of the rolls on the subject of Magna Carta (did she die in vain?).

The topic provided some light relief in the Court of Appeal’s ruling last week on the eviction of the Occupy camp at St Paul’s Churchyard. One of the appellants, Paul Randle-Jolliffe, had challenged the High Court’s eviction ruling on the ground that, as a ‘Magna Carta heir’, it did not apply to him.

The master of the rolls gave these ‘rather esoteric arguments’ short shrift. While chapter 29 of the Magna Carta (the 1297 version) ‘is seen by many as the historical foundation for the rule of law in England... it has no bearing on the arguments in this case’. It gets worse. The appellant also cited chapters 1 and 9 of the document, which assert the rights and liberties of the English church and the City of London - the very two institutions supporting the eviction. As the judgment dryly observes, the two clauses ‘cannot help the defendants’.