This fellow politely said he found some of this column's utterances on law and order "interesting" adding he intended to steal the good ones.

This was an error in judgment, not due to the admission of potential plagiarism, but allowing a reporter to think he may have any influence whatsoever. It is the equivalent of giving a brown bear a single Barbecue Shape expecting he won't come after the whole box

As a paid-up member of WWKE (We Who Know Everything) I volunteered what was wrong with the justice system. He nodded sagely. I told him how to fix it. He looked around the room – no doubt trying to find an adviser who could write down these insights. He then fled the function – I assume to head to Parliament to formulate draft legislation to be known as the Naked City Act (non-lewd version).

The criminal justice system doesn't need a tweak, nor does it need to be torn down but it does need to re-align to community expectations. Reforms must ensure the principles of justice are preserved, including the presumption of innocence, protection of victim's rights, the rehabilitation of offenders and avoidance of unnecessary delays.

The truth is that more crime, more arrests and more prisoners mean the process is choking from police station to court and finally to jail. And unless serious steps are taken it will only get worse.

To fix a problem you must first face the problem. In the UK, the home of British justice, it is acknowledged that many traditional practices are inadequate, which is why we will borrow heavily from their 2012 government White Paper, Swift and Sure Justice, that found:

"The system is in need of modernisation, with old fashioned and out-dated infrastructures and ways of working that suit the system rather than the public it serves ... A member of the public would be astounded if they visited a court. They would see rigid working practices and they would see a culture that seems to tolerate waste, delay and failure." 

Sound familiar?

Law and order will be the issue of the next state election and so here are 12 steps to winning at the next poll.

1. Crime shouldn't pay (a)

There are about six million fines issued in Victoria a year and around 700,000 defaults at a loss of revenue of $400 million. Warrants are issued and police have to run around every three months to provide updates.  A staggering 50,000 arrest warrants are issued per year in Magistrates' courts when the accused fails to front. One street policeman has a simple answer:  all social welfare payments and government benefits are frozen until the subject of a warrant turns up at a police station. You don't pay then we don't pay.

2. Crime shouldn't pay (b)

The White Paper pushes the importance of jail work.

"Presently too many prisoners are able to pass their time in prison in a state of enforced idleness, with little or no constructive activity. We want prisons to become places of meaningful work and training, where many more prisoners work for up to 40 hours a week, and possibly beyond."

In Britain up to 40 per cent of prisoners' wages are sent to a victims' support charity. Poorly skilled criminals are given work experience that can help them on the outside while they pay restitution for their crimes.

3. Let's get with the program

Despite a series of reforms criminal cases are still based on hard copy briefs and witnesses giving evidence in courts. The White Paper concludes, "A reliance on paper can be a barrier to more flexible working. Files can be mislaid, or crucial papers can go missing, leading to delays and adjournments."

The massive briefs put together after the Black Saturday Bushfires were paperless and contained statements, graphics and audio files. It is the way forward.

Equally, too much time is wasted with police waiting to give uncontested evidence at Magistrates' courts. The White Paper found allowing police to give video evidence from their station freed them to return to duty quickly and allowing prisoners to testify remotely from jail saved money and minimised risks.

Primary school children know how to conduct video-conferences and yet some courts remain more Charles Dickens than Bill Gates.

4. Swift justice is the best justice

This is not just for the victim but the accused. There is ample evidence that quick resolution helps young offenders before they become habitual criminals.

"Too often we see offenders who, rather than having been on the receiving end of swift justice, have waited months to be brought before the courts during which time they have committed a string of other offences, which need to be prosecuted."

In the UK a shoplifting case from charge to resolution takes an average of 18 days. I know lawyers who have had lunches that lasted longer.

5. Major discount for offenders who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity

Too often crooks test the evidence at a committal hearing and then plead guilty when they know they are cornered. This is not about remorse but pure self-interest. (About half the trials listed at the County Court end with a guilty plea before a jury verdict).

This means witnesses are put through hell and the brief of evidence has to be built to be bullet-proof – even when it is unlikely to ever reach a trial.

Under an improved system, plead early and get a discount then, instead of a massive brief, the court is presented with an agreed set of facts, which will save thousands of police and judicial hours.

6. Get rid of committals

Many lawyers cling to concept of committals like suckerfish to a shark although they have been abolished in many jurisdictions without compromising justice. If there is to be a jury trial let's just get on with it without an absurd, expensive dress rehearsal in the Magistrates Court that traumatises witnesses and victims.

In Victoria we have nearly 3000 committals a year, which take roughly 9000 days. Removing them would be the equivalent of employing another 36 magistrates.

7. Cut to the chase

The White Paper found: "Where cases are contested, the issues in dispute (should be) identified earlier and only those witnesses whose evidence is to be challenged are required to attend."

The Supreme Court has been told the trial of the man charged with five counts of murder from last month's Bourke Street rampage will not be ready to proceed until next year with police needing to interview more than 1000 witnesses. The case has been described as "complex and large scale".

But does it need to be? The events were caught on CCTV from beginning to end and there is no way on God's green earth that 1000 witness will be needed to find the truth. And isn't that the purpose of a trial? Perhaps the tragedy of Bourke Street can be the catalyst for change. Run one murder trial on one victim. If the accused is found guilty then he is guilty of the remaining five. Delay the trial and you delay the inquest where important issues such as city security and police pursuits will be examined.

8. Turn on the clock

Why can cross examination take days over events that take minutes? It is a barrister's tactic to wear down a witness by asking the same question in different forms . The same with summing up to a jury –  the longer the process the more confusing the message. Prime Minister Robert Menzies' WWII declaration took less than 150 words.

9. Stop the delays

Defence lawyers not ready to proceed without reasonable excuse? Dock their pay. Defendant fails to show at Magistrate's court without lawful excuse? Find them guilty. Prosecution not ready without a proper reason? Acquit. Key forensic evidence not ready within three months of arrest? Dismiss.

10. Simplify traffic offences

All non-criminal traffic offences dealt with on the spot without court action. At present Magistrates deal with 85,000 driving matters a year. It you want to contest the facts go to court, otherwise cop the deal and stop wasting everyone's time.

11. Revamp Highway Patrol

The (correct) decision to ban solo patrols due to terror concerns has reduced visible police presence. The number of on-the-spot fines has dropped and the road toll has jumped. With the promise of thousands of extra police we need to put more on the roads.

12. Rethink the use of Protective Service Officers at train stations

A thimble and pea policy supported only by pea brains means we have more PSOs patrolling empty stations than police patrolling the streets. The concept of PSOs is good but the way they are deployed is nuts.

Put PSOs in court, on traffic duty, in trains, at crime scenes and in hospital emergency rooms where they can make a difference. If this was about results rather than votes the policy would change.

But don't hold your breath.