I have a question on proposed subsection (3.4). I'm not very familiar with the principles of drafting, but this seems somewhat anachronistic to me.
First, you impose a mandatory obligation on the judge to provide reasons in those circumstances where the judge raises it to one and a half days. And then you allow the judge to ignore it, in a sense. Is that because the judiciary may have complained to the civil service that there might be too many reasons to write? Why is it being done that way? First you impose an obligation, and the government makes such a big thing out of it that they want judges to give reasons, and then you give them a loophole.
I'm not opposed to it. I just want to know what the rationale is.