If justice delayed is justice denied, the sheriff courts have a problem. With 35 per cent of summary cases in 2014/15 taking longer than the target “efficiency” time of 26 weeks, reform cannot come soon enough. Change has reached the higher courts at long last; the lower courts must follow.

The Auditor General’s report on efficiency and the prosecution of criminal cases leaves little room for argument. The analysis, as prepared by Audit Scotland, fully recognises the problems facing the system, but the fundamental importance of speedy, fair and efficient justice means that pressures cannot be allowed to become excuses.

More cases are more complex than before: so much is granted. Those involving domestic abuse and historical sexual offences provide particular challenges. Controversies over legal aid rumble on, with effects that are hard to measure. For good or ill, meanwhile, some court buildings have been marked for closure. The consequences, if any, have yet to be felt.

Above all, the financial restraints that have seen the Scottish Government’s budget fall by seven per cent between 2010/11 and 2014/15 have had a disproportionate effect on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and on the Scottish Courts Service. The overall budget for the former was down by 14 per cent over the period, the latter by 28 per cent. Whether this was fair is neither here nor there: spending money is not an option.

Some 88,000 people come before the sheriff courts each year to face prosecution. As the report emphasises, many more individuals, whether victims, witnesses, court staff or legal professionals, are involved. In an obvious sense, indeed, we are all involved, not least because an estimated £203 million of public money is spent on prosecutions. The simple fact that £10m is being expended annually on “unnecessarily repeating a court appearance”, otherwise known as “churn”, is a matter for concern in itself.

It is reported, nevertheless, that 48 per cent of 214,533 summary cases did not “proceed as planned” last year. It is also known that a failure to hit the 26-week target for the completion of cases is becoming more common, that the 65 per cent success rate is down by eight percentage points since 201/11. Whether six months counts as a yardstick for efficiency when cases are becoming more complex is a moot point. The statistic measures the challenge.

The Auditor General makes some common sense recommendations. First, make the system more coherent. Ensure that management information is co-ordinated and shared. That achieved, look to forward planning and the allocation of scarce resources.

Think again, meanwhile, about the six-month performance target. If it does not reflect reality adequately, why not consider the number of trials in the queue, and the cost to the system of different types of cases? Consider, equally, why some sheriffdoms and courts seem to perform better than others in dealing with issues such as churn. Finally, simple as it sounds, ensure that each of the organisations serving justice works together locally.

As things stand, in short, the system is insufficiently systematic. This state of affairs has existed for far too long. Demands are increasing, not diminishing, and there is no alternative to speedy reform.