When a trial judge convicts or acquits an accused person, they should explain how they reached their verdict in light of the evidence, the parties' submissions, and the governing law. By setting out their reasons for decision, judges promote public accountability and trust in the system. They also increase the likelihood that affected parties will accept the verdicts, inasmuch as stakeholders are demonstrably more apt to regard legal outcomes as just and legitimate if the reasons for those outcomes are transparent and cogent. Additionally, and crucially, clear criminal judgments facilitate the appeal process by enabling parties to decide whether and how to craft appeals, and by allowing appellate courts to detect and correct errors. The importance of appellate review in criminal cases can hardly be overstated. Indeed, in one of its most recent decisions, R. v. C.P., reported at 71 C.R. (7th) 118, the Supreme Court ("the Court") notes that "[t]he reviewability of criminal convictions has 'been an integral part of our criminal law system since the enactment of the Criminal Code' in 1892," and that it plays an important role in preventing wrongful convictions.