It is worse for child victims of sexual abuse. A few years ago, I approved the evidence of a young child witness being video recorded months before the trial for myriad compelling reasons including to reduce the stress for that child, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal on the grounds it might be unfair to the defendant. What about fairness to the child? Should they be expected to talk accurately (or even at all) of events two years before when they are now only 8 and the events in question were therefore a quarter of their lifetime ago?
Do not let it be forgotten that the presumption of innocence and the delay between arrest and trial is one of the major factors in any judge determining whether to grant or refuse bail.
If someone has spent two years or even more in custody before being found not guilty, that is scant reward for the fact that their relationship with a partner has, in the interim, almost inevitably been destroyed, their home has long since been repossessed, their job has disappeared and that their children will possibly no longer recognise them. Yet there is no compensation.
The Government apparently sanctions the dire shortage of coroners and judges upon the dubious assumption that crime is falling. I very much doubt that to be the case; it's simply another example of fudging the statistics. Even if it were true, it can scarcely be a reason to assume non-natural deaths are also declining.
The justice system in this country is seriously flawed. It needs a major rethink that does not involve simply slashing costs to meet budget forecasts and assuming that a cap on funding will not result in the cutting of corners, plea bargains and even worse.
I would ask that we commit the justice system to the completion of any criminal trial within a year of the commencement of proceedings and to a similar timetable for coronial inquests. Or is that too much to ask of a country that claims to be fair and just?