It may not seem obvious to all, but there are many similarities between the institutions of the press and the judiciary in a constitutional democracy.

First, both are independent in the sense that they conduct themselves without inappropriate interference by the democratically-elected arms of government.

Second, judges and journalists are both craftspeople, in the old-fashioned sense of the word. Like all crafts, the basic skills may be taught, but real expertise grows on the job. Like all true crafts, too, the honing of the relevant skills is best achieved in a collegial environment in which peer critique and mentoring are crucial.

The drawback of craft professions of this sort is the difficulty of transformation within them. Historically, craft professions are homogeneous institutions, which have historically tended to reinforce homogeneity through the processes of mentoring which are key to their existence.

Accordingly, transformation poses particular challenges for both our institutions.

Thirdly, both the judiciary and the press are institutions prerequisite to constitutional democracy.

Without both an independent press and an independent judiciary, democracy cannot flourish.

This said, however, journalists and judges must be self-conscious not to overemphasise their own importance at the expense of the fundamental institutions of a democracy, the legislature and the executive.

Not only are there similarities between the press and the judiciary, I would assert the relationship between them in a constitutional democracy is a symbiotic one.

There is also an establishable symbiotic relationship between a free press, an independent judiciary and functioning democratic institutions.

As the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said in a statement to mark World Press Freedom Day in 1997: "No democratic society can exist without a free, independent and pluralistic press."

Today I want to consider some of the obstacles that lie in the path of the symbiotic relationship between the press and the judiciary.

It is trite that the function of a judiciary in a modern constitutional democracy is to uphold fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom of expression. Similarly, it is clear that the judiciary is not able to communicate its opinions widely without the intervention of the press.

But, despite the similarities between the judiciary and the press outlined above, and despite our obvious mutual interdependence, the relationship between the judiciary and the press is not always easy.

In an illuminating article on her work as the United States Supreme Court journalist for the New York Times, Linda Greenberg recounts the difficulties of being a journalist and the apparent disinterest of the US Supreme Court in the factors that dominate her life: deadlines; column inches; the need to publish current, not stale, news; and the need for accuracy.

She also speaks of the inaccessibility of the judges, the absence of a human side.

These are obstacles which hinder the relationship between the press and the judiciary, and they are issues faced by journalists covering courts in SA and, in particular, those covering the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.

At the Constitutional Court, we have taken various steps to make journalists' lives easier. But the simple truth is that the paradigm of judging and the paradigm of journalism are different and for good institutional reasons. And the paradigm clash needs to be understood by journalists to be overcome.

The way in which judges go about their work can seem tedious, slow, pernickety and indeed pettifogging to many journalists and members of the public.

But judicial work is about reasoning. The accountability of the judge lies in the reasoning in their judgments. Criticising the outcome of a case without reading the judgment is quite a different thing - to do so shows little respect or understanding of the nature of the judicial process.

Equally distressing is how often the outcome of a case is considered to be determined by the race or gender of a judge. It is true that our constitution requires the judiciary to "reflect broadly the race and gender composition of South Africa". It also requires judges to apply the law "impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice".

All judges bring to their work their identity. It is true that in the past judges have often been sublimely unaware of their prejudices and biases and have assumed self-confidently that they are impartial. On the contrary, impartiality is something which has to be worked at self-consciously.

It is possible to scrutinise one's history and prejudices, and to cultivate a habit of listening before judging. It is easier to do this in the diverse multi-coloured, bi-gendered environment the constitution wants us to establish. Seen thus, representivity fosters impartiality, it does not contradict it.

Another consequence of the constitutional principle of impartiality is the necessary distance that judges must maintain between themselves and the press. Judging is not about being popular. Judges are not available to give press conferences, nor are they much in the habit of giving interviews.

This distance is a necessary one. As Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales recently remarked: "Certainly, a judge should not have any communication with the media which suggests that he or she covets the approval of the media."

This necessary distance obviously makes covering the courts more difficult than covering other institutions.

There is another side, of course, to this relationship between the media and the judiciary. The judiciary is responsible for the development of the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freedom of the press and other media.

In performing this task, judges need in turn to appreciate the paradigm within which journalists work. The pressured context of newsrooms and deadlines, the need for currency, and the difficulties of pursuing stories are all considerations that judges need to take into account. More controversially, however, it is important too that judges acknowledge the power of the press.

As Anthony Lewis observed: "The press has real power in our political system now, driving public opinion in ways unimaginable in the past."

Kate O'Regan is a judge of the Constitutional Court. This is an edited version of a speech she delivered yesterday at the Webber Wentzel Bowens Legal Journalist of the Year Award

With acknowledgements to Kate O'Regan and The Star.