's ongoing series on reforms to the justice system has already made public a number of good ideas on how the system can be made more efficient without being unfair.

One of the most welcome features of the series has been the willingness of those interviewed to support ideas that could cost them money.

That in itself is a recognition that the court system is not working and is very close to breaking down entirely.

A number of proposals from prosecutors and lawyers in private practice are worth looking at closely. And they need not cost the public much money, either.

First, Government does deserve some credit for finally tendering for a transcribing service for the courts. This is potentially the most costly change to the system.

But the alternative is to allow the expensive equipment already bought to record trials go to waste, to allow trials to drag on and on while judges laboriously create a record of the trial in longhand and to drag out cases and appeals for years.

The sooner a proper and modern transcription service is installed the better.

Secondly, in criminal cases, the necessity of having a preliminary inquiry for every single Supreme Court case is clearly a waste of time and effort for all involved. It should be possible to allow defendants to voluntarily waive their right to the inquiry so that they can be remanded to Supreme Court for trial as soon as possible.

Where a defendant wishes to demonstrate that there is prima facie case against him or her, the right to the inquiry can remain in place.

Similarly, many pre-trial arguments on admissibility of evidence and the like could be submitted well in advance of the trial and there is no real need for many of the time-wasting and costly pre-trial arguments that can go on for weeks. Much of what goes on in these hearings can be dealt with by written submissions and counter-submissions on which the judge can then rule.

One further long promised and still unimplemented reform that would save a good deal of time in criminal cases would be the recording of Police interviews. Then, if evidence or confessions are contested later, the jury could see the tape of an interview and make its mind up.

In today's newspaper, Bar Council president David Kessaram makes strong arguments for the adoption of the Woolf reforms that have done much to speed up justice in the UK and in parts of the Caribbean.

Most Bermudians will be unfamiliar with Lord Woolf's reforms to civil procedures. But they are, by all accounts, working, and would be a welcome improvement on the often glacial process by which civil disputes are settled in the courts now.

At the same time, Mr. Kessaram is right to point out that a lack of parliamentary draftsmen means that much law reform has been completely stalled.

This includes legislation that would make divorce law more efficient when marriages end amicably and the outdated Supreme Court rules.

Some of the proposals above have been promised but not acted upon. Others are trapped in a bureaucratic quagmire while others have been barely thought of.

But all of them could make the system more efficient ? and in some cases, even fairer than it is now.

It is a truism that justice delayed is justice denied. And with victims and those accused of crimes waiting as long as three or four years for their day in court and parties in civil actions often waiting even longer, too many people are being denied the justice they deserve.