Joshua Rozenberg is quite right to highlight the problems of judicial styles and titles that flow from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and the muddle that has continued since the 'abolition' of the office of the Lord Chancellor following Lord Irvine's departure (see [2008] Gazette, 21 February, 11).


May I suggest the following scheme, that would be both coherent and pay due regard to the historical origins of judicial titles:



- The title of Lord Chancellor is still associated in the public mind with the historic judicial role of the office and the tradition of 'keeper of the king's conscience', rather than being an adjunct to the title of the Minister of Justice. I therefore propose that the title should transfer to the President of the Supreme Court;



- The style of 'Lord Justice' should be used by the Justices of the Supreme Court. This would neatly avoid the present confusion between Lords Justices of Appeal and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary among the public, and which also frequently results in journalists less learned than Mr Rozenberg referring to decisions of the Court of Appeal as decisions of the 'Law Lords'. My proposal would continue the popular association of the 'Law Lords' with the highest court of appeal. For those of a historical turn of mind, the combination of the titles of Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice in the Supreme Court also neatly harks back to the origins of the title of Lord Justice in the Court of Chancery;



- Judges of the Court of Appeal should have the same style as puisne judges - 'Mr/Mrs Justice', but if the practice of appointing Appeal Court judges as Privy Counsellors was retained, then those appointed to the Court of Appeal would be differentiated by being 'Right Honourable' while puisne judges would retain the existing style of 'Honourable'. This would also be more consistent than the present arrangement in the Court of Appeal, with civil appeals being heard by judges all styled 'Lord Justice' and criminal appeals by a mixture of judges styled as Lords Justices or as puisne judges.



Doubtless issues about judicial robes would follow, but I am content to leave that to Mr Rozenberg in a future column!



Huw Williams, Geldards, Cardiff