9. We believe that our reference on criminal procedure is timely. Today, both legislatures and courts are coming under increasing public criticism for failing to provide quicker, cheaper, and more efficient systems of criminal justice. There is, of course, no general agreement as to what should be done. Even where inadequacies are acknowledged, the remedies proposed vary with the perspectives of the critic. In turn, these perspectives reflect different ideologies. A civil libertarian for example, may have views different from those of a law enforcement agency on the desirability of a pre-trial procedure designed to discover details of a defendant s case. We must keep factors of this kind in mind throughout the course of our work on this reference. We must also keep in mind the view that criminal justice systems need to balance competing demands. There are, for example, demands for effective law enforcement and demands for the maintenance of individual rights and freedoms. Both need to be respected, and a proper balance between them must be struck if changes in procedures interfere with that balance, the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies may be diminished or the protection accorded to the liberty of the individual may be eroded.

10. In speaking of the need for our reference, we ask by way of illustration some very general questions. The questions are:

• Is our criminal courts system coping adequately with its work-load of serious criminal cases?
• Can our existing procedures cope adequately with “white collar” and computer crime?
• Is the law relating to criminal procedure readily accessible to those who need to understand the system?
• Can juries, without additional assistance, cope with the complex laws they are called upon to apply?