Critics of the deal claim that costs of redress should have been split evenly between the Church and State. That probably sounds like a reasonable suggestion to most, but it ignores the fact that one cannot say what proportion of liability should fall on the State and on the religious congregations. The only way strict legal liability could have been determined was by putting every case through a full court procedure. Was it a real or preferable option to drag every case into the courts with all the attendant delays and with the possibility that some cases might fail? I think not.