Poison-pen columnists looking for a cheap shot can always rely on the ‘judges out of touch’ jibe. So it came as something of a welcome surprise to some to see the lord chief justice dealing firmly with the issue of Twitter in court last week.

Not that he was prepared to refer directly to Twitter, instead using the quaint term ‘text-based communications devices’ (a tweet-ruining 34 characters). Stories referring to Twitter being allowed in the court room were a little misleading - last week’s practice guidance was merely a rubber-stamping of interim guidance from one year ago.

It’s admirable that Lord Judge chose to intervene in an issue that clearly needs addressing. Let’s not kid ourselves: texts and tweets have been sent from courts for years - most of you reading this piece will probably have indulged at some point away from the gaze of the judge.

This made the LCJ’s task a near-impossible one. The use of these devices (let’s call them ‘mobiles’ shall we?) by court users is inevitable, barring a draconian confiscation of every one as people enter. But the guidance will do little to address the dangers Lord Judge himself acknowledges are created by tweets from court.

It is noted in his report that witnesses waiting to enter the courtroom will be able to read what is happening inside, helping to coach or brief them in ways that have always been prevented. There are also serious question marks over juries being granted access to inadmissible evidence from which they would normally be shielded.

The guidance states that journalists are automatically allowed to tweet from court, the assumption being that they understand the laws of contempt and will edit their 140 characters accordingly. But what of legal bloggers? Do they count as members of the public or the media? It’s a grey area that has been granted no light here.

Members of the public will have to apply to the bench for permission to tweet, a stipulation that will surely be abused in courtrooms across the land. It’s not difficult to conceal a phone while sitting in the public benches. And even if permission is sought and granted, how can the judge be satisfied that tweets are being kept within legal boundaries? Are they to impose hashtags for every case and monitor the live feeds on their own communications device? It is unworkable surely, and naïve to think that Twitter can be restrained from the courtroom.

It is wise to allow the use of laptops and mobile phones, if only to prevent the absurd scuttling of reporters to and from courthouse press areas. Journalists should be allowed to write from the court, provided it is quiet and unobtrusive.

But judges face an impossible task in regulating and supervising every tweet that emanates from the public benches.

It won’t be long until a defence solicitor calls for a trial to be halted because of a rogue text or tweet. If it was a man with a megaphone threatening contempt laws outside court they would be stopped. Twitter can reach millions more people, but it’s a Pandora’s box that is near impossible to close.

Follow John on Twitter