Is Jack Straw managing to pull it off with the judges? This week the Justice Secretary, aka Lord Chancellor, was clearly proffering plentiful olive branches to ease the deadlock in the continuing discord between the judiciary and the executive.

Straw inherited the judges’ dispute from his predecessor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. But he does not carry the same baggage.

First, he starts from the obvious advantage that he did not set up the contentious Ministry of Justice. Nor was he involved when, in 2003, Tony Blair set about seeking to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, creating a supreme court and dismantling the delicate constitutional framework between the judiciary and executive.

He is also a known and respected minister. One Labour insider said: “The judges were hugely relieved that they did not get any of the other ministers on offer — people who are even more red-blooded, populist or hostile to the legal profession."

So it is easier for Straw to acknowledge judicial concerns — and this week he has gone out of his way to make clear he does so — and furthermore, is taking steps to tackle them.

The judges are bruised from the original back-of-the-envelope reforms when Lord Irvine of Lairg was ousted as Lord Chancellor and a new Department for Constitutional Affairs set up. But the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, fought a successful rearguard action and won a concordat — a deal as to the relationship between judges and the executive.

But what has happened since? The concordat, judges say, has been trounced. Far from being consulted about resources for the justice system, for instance, they have been ignored and sidelined. The judicial arm of the constitution has been significantly diminished.

Straw is a barrister by training but he is a consummate politician. He empathises with the judges’ concerns. He told the Constitutional Affairs Committee of MPs this week that it was understandable that given the past four years, the equilibrium of the relationship between judges and the executive had been “jolted”.

But he has made a series of gestures to ease the stand-off. First, he wants to review the procedures of the Judicial Appointments Commission over which, he acknowledges, there is “widespread concern at every level of the judiciary”.

The workings have proved cumbersome and caused delays, he told MPs. He wants to cut red tape and speed up appointments — now taking several months. He also pledged to cut delays at his end, promising to “turn around” any recommendations of judicial appointments within 24 hours — or in a weekend.

Then there is the spectre, raised in Gordon Brown’s governance proposals, for American-style confirmation hearings or questioning of prospective judicial candidates by politicians. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has made clear his strong opposition. Straw is more circumspect — but the message is clear. “My default position would be to leave things as they are because they have just undergone change.”

Finally, what of the judges’ call for a review of the setting up of a Ministry of Justice? As time elapses, the demand — as ministers know full well — loses its bite. This request, as yet, goes unanswered: but Straw has set up a small working party, involving a district judge and a senior official, to look at the relationship between the Courts Service and the Ministry of Justice.

Agreement on the judges’ concerns, Straw concedes, is “months” off. But improving their relationship is not so much “an event” as a “process”.

It is unlikely that the judges will get the ring-fencing of the courts’ budget that they want to ensure that it is not plundered to meet the inexorable demands of the prisons. But, Straw says, even though there will not be agreement on everything, there will be “an absolute understanding on everything”.

Above all, the Justice Secretary is succeeding in proving that the first Commons minister in charge of the justice system can be trusted — and, as he put it, “far from undermining the reputation and independence of the judiciary, that can enhance it”.

So a deal of sorts — or at least a workable accord — is in the offing. For Straw, facing a far more intractable crisis on the prison numbers front, that will be needed and very much welcome.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over