I don’t really know Helen, but on the news they said that, rather than suspend the courts for the duration, they were proposing having serious cases judged by a judge alone without the input of a jury. Barristers are objecting because: 1) it sets a precedent 2) it will be cheaper than jury trials and so may not be revoked after the emergency. 3) It flies in the face of the right to a fair trial going back hundreds of years. It’s an astonishing proposal and I’m sure it will be watched south of the border.