Government proposals to speed up criminal justice have had a mixed reception. However, wearing the hat of a retired old fogey, as well as of a concerned layman, I wonder if the criminal justice system is really working today.

First of all, there is what seems to be a new technique: arresting people (often in highly publicised circumstances) without any real evidence against them. Then, after bailing them out for months (if not years) comes the task of trying to find some. Often, none materialises. Recent examples have included the arrests of jockeys in a case which dragged on and on, a retired school teacher accused of murder, and most recently the parents whose child died in tragic circumstances.

At least in their case the police soon released them, but no doubt not until they had been subject to accusations which turned out to be erroneous, coupled with the humiliation of swabs, interrogations and cellular confinement adding to the trauma of losing their child. My fading recollection from the days when I worked as a defence lawyer is that the police had to have credible evidence against the suspect before they made an arrest. Not any more.

Then there is the practice of bailing people charged with offences for a few weeks. In my day an arrest and charge was followed by a court appearance within 24 hours. What can be the possible justification - except that the Crown Prosecution Service is a bit busy - for not having the person in court the next day and getting on with things? Then there is the remand for reports. Years ago defendants, if found guilty by a jury, were sentenced there and then. In rare cases they might be put back for reports, but it was generally a case of instant retribution. Now, with months between arrest and trial, why are there not reports available for the hearing? These remands seem to be a waste of court time and money on advocates’ fees.

The remands also seem to be breeding a new development of mitigation by newspaper columnist. In one recent high-profile case, after the defendant was found guilty there seems to have been something of an effort in the press to campaign for a non-custodial sentence. In another, a defendant has had the opportunity to plead his cause, arguing that his actions had some merit. It may be that they have, but is it right he should be allowed to air his views before the case is heard?

There used to be a maxim: ‘To be certain, justice must be swift.’ This seems to be far - and getting farther - from the case.

James Morton is a writer and former criminal defence solicitor