The headline was upsetting. The article itself was a relief to read. On the face of it, I think it's an ok solution to a significant crisis. But I worry. Jury trial is an undervalued democratic process. I say undervalued because I don't think people quite understand the importance of upholding jury trials and how much of an essential arm of democracy they are to the public. I do see this as a sign that democracy is surreptitiously being undermined (what else is new though?). There is a danger to this.
But then, there is a critical backlog and the centre cannot hold unless there is an urgent change. And this is it. This is the best the government can offer.
But it's probably the best option. I say this as someone who watched my daughter lose years of her childhood to a legal system that was manipulated by her abuser, using delay tactics and anything else that he could do to throw a spanner in the works. These delays significantly impact the mental health of victims and their families and by the time the victim does get justice, they can't even recognise it anymore because of the length of time it takes to receive it. So much damage is done to victims by criminals dragging out proceedings (if they possibly can do so). It's almost like an extra layer of abuse, enabled by a legal system that allows for criminals to play it. It's detrimental, to be honest. My daughter has often felt that in a strange way, she too has done time, she too has been convicted by a system that left her feeling as if systemic support rushed towards her perpetrator then trickled down to her.
The backlog is indeed terrible. But I also think the backlog in the courts (family and criminal, et al) is mostly due to a pathetic IT system that doesn't join up any dots. The technological infrastructure is prehistoric and not fit for purpose. This is having an enormous impact on all of the hearings in all of the courts. That needs to be addressed because that in itself is critical.