There is great force in the varied contributions to the debate on judicial appointments (see [2008] Gazette, 7 February, 13). District judge Peter Glover was correct to point out that being a district judge is a satisfying end in itself.


But why does our judiciary have to be organised on its present basis? There is only one set of Civil Procedure Rules. Why do we have a hierarchy of judges? Why do we preserve the distinction between district, circuit and High Court judges with different titles and salaries?



Lord Woolf steered clear of recommending an amalgamation of courts, personnel and functions, no doubt to avoid a prolonged and sterile debate about who would be given a knighthood and who would not.



The time has come for there to be one grade of judge below the level of the Court of Appeal. The Judicial Appointments Commission may well be failing all solicitors, particularly those from ethnic minorities. But the commission can only operate within the scope of the existing judicial hierarchy. A review of the merits (if any) and demerits of that system is called for.



Charles Blake, London