She went to the High Court to file her claim; the Court of Appeal struck out proceedings because it said the Probation Service was not bound to offer Susan a duty of care; then the Supreme Court confirmed her case could proceed.
Finally, Susan Couch and barrister Brian Henry could have their day in court.
The case opened this week and Susan's barrister asked that it be heard by a judge and jury. The Crown's reason for opposing a jury left me furious. The case couldn't be heard by a jury, apparently, because it was too complex and the damages case had too many nuances of law to be grappled with.
That is absolute bullshit. The Crown is opposed to a jury hearing the case because they know that reasonable citizens would find in Couch's favour and probably ask leave to bump up the damages by a whole lot more.
Every right-thinking New Zealander must be appalled at the way Couch has been treated, first by Bell then by the Government. Besides, the too-complex argument doesn't wash. The Waihopai trial, the Urewera Four trial, the Scott Watson trial - these were highly complex and the Crown trusted a jury to handle those.
No. The Crown will be reluctant to let a jury decide in Susan Couch's case because they fear a ruling in her favour would open the floodgates to a whole lot of New Zealanders who have been badly let down by government departments.
The mean-spirited attitude from various agencies has been appalling. The case will cost more than she's asking for. Give the woman a break, for God's sake. It's the right thing to do.