Soon now - in a matter of weeks, according to the Northern Ireland Office - Peter Mandelson will be fingering a heavy parcel from the Criminal Justice Review group just landed on his desk.
It will not be as explosive as the Patten report on policing, but there will be a few suspicious wires protruding from the covering paper. Already there are reports of some divisions within the group over the nature and scale of its proposals. Nationalists, and more particularly republicans, as well as unionists will be regarding this package with diligent attention.
The Criminal Justice Review body has a fairly wide remit under the Belfast Agreement, but centrally it's about who appoints Northern Ireland's judges and whether the prosecution service - currently in the shape of the Director of Public Prosecutions - should be more open and accountable.
Any tampering with the present system is sure to have some unionists claiming further appeasement to republicanism. But maintenance of the status quo will have republicans and nationalists claiming the appeasement is in the opposite direction.
The review body is made up of 11 members under the chairmanship of Jim Daniell, Director of Criminal Justice at the Northern Ireland Office. Four are officials from the NIO and the remaining five are independent assessors. All have legal and/or criminal justice backgrounds.
The body would not comment on reports that it is to recommend a new system for appointing judges and that a wholly independent prosecution service is to be created to replace the DPP. Neither would members comment on a Belfast Telegraph report that some members were threatening to issue a minority report.
Appointments to the judiciary are the responsibility of the British Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, a member of the British cabinet. According to a consultation paper from the review group, appointments are made "on merit, without regard to gender, marital status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion or disability".
There is no suggestion of any questioning of the merit of those appointments. But some other aspects of this review statement drew a sardonic response from the Belfast-based civil liberties group, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, in a submission to the review body.
"In so far as we are aware," said the CAJ, "Northern Ireland has no disabled judges, no gay judges, an insufficient number of Catholic judges, no nationalist judges, and up until a few months ago, no women judges. If the non-discrimination procedures are working properly the bench is remaining stubbornly unrepresentative of the community they are appointed to serve.
"In the absence of published data CAJ is of the opinion that the religious balance in the present judiciary is not proportionate to the population of Northern Ireland. While there are a number of Catholic judges their numbers are unjustifiably small," it added.
According to figures from the Northern Ireland Court Service, in the senior judicial ranks there are currently 11 High Court judges and 13 County Court judges. Of these only one is a woman. This gender imbalance "is so extreme as to require urgent and immediate attention," said the CAJ.
The Court Service, when queried about the religious and political makeup of the judiciary, responded: "The perceived community origin of judicial office-holders is not a factor in the judicial appointments process and accordingly no information is held in this regard."
Implicit in this answer is the contention that the religious or political makeup of the judiciary is irrelevant, and that when it comes to making decisions from the bench it acts objectively and apolitically. Therefore, in relation to unionism or nationalism, talk of political disposition is inappropriate.
The CAJ none the less contends that in such a divided society as Northern Ireland, perception is important. It wants the appointments system to be more open and has urged the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Committee to take over from the British Lord Chancellor. Such a body should include lay as well as legal members, it says.
The CAJ is also highly critical of the DPP, who, it argues, is unaccountable for his actions. The office comes under the control of the British attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, also a member of the British cabinet.
Many nationalist representative groups have also regularly criticised the office of the DPP over some of its decisions. Earlier this week the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry published a lengthy report calling for the replacement of the DPP office because "the prosecution process lacks transparency and therefore frustrates legal accountability".
In its submission to the Criminal Justice Review, the CAJ, which is an independent non-governmental organisation, queried the actions of the DPP in several cases, among them John Stalker's investigation of the RUC.
Arising from the Stalker inquiry into allegations of an RUC shoot-to-kill policy in 1982, the DPP justified the bringing of charges - including perverting the course of justice - against a number of police officers. However, in 1988 the then attorney general, Sir Patrick Mayhew, said he had brought it to the attention of the DPP that for a number of matters, including some relating to public interest and national security, "it would not be proper to institute criminal proceedings".
The CAJ says in its submission: "This case, probably more than any other, exposes the myth of the political independence of the DPP." For such reasons, according to the CAJ, it is imperative that a new prosecution service is created that must answer such questions.
Defenders of the DPP office make the point that, given the complex nature of the prosecution system, such value judgments can't be readily made. One legal expert noted that the DPP in the Republic seldom if ever gives explanations for particular decisions. "What is crucial here is that the DPP is in the evidence business, and that does not necessarily correspond with the truth business."
These and other difficult questions are in the final stages of being teased out by the Criminal Justice Review. Nationalists will be seeking major change, while unionists would probably favour little or no change.
Peter Weir, a barrister and unionist assembly member, said the present system has worked very well in difficult circumstances. "I would be very suspicious of any changes that are motivated from a political viewpoint," he warned.
He also reflected unionist concern that the review body might interfere with British symbols apparent in the courts or prosecution service. "Any changes there would be seen as another blow to unionism," he said.
The review was to be completed last autumn but was put back because of the complexity of the problem it was addressing, the NIO said this week. Now in draft form and due to be published next month, it will be a weighty publication crammed with recommendations, according to the NIO.
As well as judicial appointments and the prosecution service, it is also addressing law reform, the scope for structured co-operation between the criminal justice agencies on both parts of this island, and the potential for lay participation in the system.
A little ironically, in view of the suspension of the political institutions, it is also considering what functions to devolve to the assembly and whether a department of justice should be created. It is also examining whether restorative justice could be applied in Northern Ireland.
Its remit does not, however, include such issues as non-jury Diplock courts and emergency legislation, which separately are being considered by the British government.