Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 17 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 went missing and subsequent attempts to reconstruct the record were further frustrated after the documents that were to be used in such reconstruction also went missing. The record was only reconstructed using two of three note books supplied by the trial prosecutor. [49] The delay is clearly not the fault of the State. It is apparent that some unknown person, possibly with the assistance of persons working in the system, went to great lengths to ensure that the record of the proceedings was irretrievably lost. Whilst it will be unfair to suggest, as did the trial judge, that the applicant had anything to do with such disappearance it is, however, clear that the only person who stands to benefit from a situation where the record is irretrievably lost is the applicant. [50] The facts of this case illustrate, as observed by GUBBAY CJ in In re Mlambo (supra), that the system has shortcomings (at p 346B). The disappearance of the record could not have been avoided and, though occasioned by the activities of some unknown persons but who were obviously intent on making sure the record was permanently lost and that it could not be reconstructed, constituted a systemic delay. Indeed in In re Mlambo (supra) at 350 D-E GUBBAY CJ cited with approval the remarks by POWEL J in Barker v Wingo (supra) that: “…… Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness should serve to justify appropriate delay.” [51] In Police v Sherlock (supra), the Supreme Court of South Australia accepted that obstacles to a fair trial may be encountered and that it is not always possible to achieve a perfect trial. The Court cited with approval remarks by MASON CJ in Jago v District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR, 23 that: “Obstacles in the way of a fair trial are often encountered in administering criminal justice. Adverse publicity in the reporting of notorious crimes ……