29 November 2001
THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2001
THE SENATE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Present: Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA, Chairperson
Mrs Eileen Bell MLA, Deputy Chairperson
Mr Gregory Campbell MLA
Sir John Gorman MLA
Mr John Kelly MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
Attendees: Mr Tony Logue, Clerk of Ad hoc Committees
Mr Damien McVeigh
Apologies: Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
2.36pm: The meeting opened in public session-Mr Shipley Dalton
in the Chair.
1. Apologies
The apology was noted. It was noted that Mr
Kelly was deputising for Mrs Nelis.
2. Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Resolved, that the draft Minutes of Proceedings for
Tuesday, 27 November 2001 be agreed.
3. Matters arising
Members noted a draft speech that the Chairperson would
make to the Assembly at the debate on the extension of the Committee's reporting
period. It was noted that the debate was scheduled for 5.30pm on Monday,
3 December 2001.
4. Evidence session: Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
2.42pm: The Chairperson called the Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission (NIHRC) on the Human Rights aspects of the criminal justice reform
proposals. Representing NIHRC were-
- Prof. Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner; and
- Dr Linda Moore, Investigations worker.
Members noted that the NIHRC had made a preliminary
submission and that they would make their final submission to the Committee in
due course.
3.18pm: Mr Maginness left the meeting.
3.38pm: Mrs Bell left the meeting.
3.39pm: Mr Campbell left the meeting.
5. Evidence session: The Law Society of Northern Ireland
3.41pm: The Chairperson called the Law Society of Northern Ireland
to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Law Society of Northern
Ireland (LSNI) on the impact of the criminal justice reform proposals on the
legal profession. Representing LSNI were-
- Mr John Neill, Senior Vice-President; and
- Mr John Bailie, Chief Executive.
6. Any other business
No other matters were raised.
7. Date and time of next meeting
The Committee agreed that it would next meet at 2.30pm
on Tuesday, 4 December 2001.
4.31pm: The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA
CHAIRPERSON
4 December 2001
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Present: Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA, Chairperson
Mr Gregory Campbell MLA
Mr John Kelly MLA
Mrs Patricia Lewsley MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Pat McNamee MLA
Mr Mark Robinson MLA
Attendees: Mr Tony Logue, Clerk of Ad hoc Committees
Mr Damien McVeigh
Apologies: Mr Alex Attwood MLA
Mrs Eileen Bell MLA, Deputy Chairperson
Sir John Gorman MLA
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
2.30pm: The meeting opened in private session-Mr Shipley Dalton
in the Chair.
1. Apologies
The apologies were noted. It was further noted
that the following members would be deputising: Mr Kelly for Mrs Nelis; Mrs
Lewsley for Mr Attwood; Mr McNamee for Mr McLaughlin; and Mr Robinson for Mr
Paisley.
2. Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Resolved, that the draft Minutes of Proceedings for
Thursday, 29 November 2001 be agreed.
3. Matters arising
Members noted that the Assembly had agreed the Chairperson's
motion on the extension of the Committee's reporting period.
4. Correspondence
2.34pm: Mrs Lewsley joined the meeting.
Members noted a letter from Include Youth requesting
an opportunity to give evidence to the Committee.
Resolved, that the Committee would invite a written
submission from Include Youth.
2.37pm: The Chairperson declared the meeting to be in public
session.
5. Evidence session: Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Court
Service
2.40pm: The Chairperson called the witnesses to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO)
and the Northern Ireland Court Service. Representing the NIO were-
- Mr Brian White, Head of Criminal Justice Policy Division;
- Mr Stephen Webb, Head of Criminal Justice Review Implementation Team; and
- Mr Mark McGuckin, Head of Criminal Justice Services Division.
Representing the Northern Ireland Court Service were-
- Mr David Lavery, Director General, Northern Ireland Court Service; and
- Mr Tommy O'Reilly, Northern Ireland Court Service.
Members noted that Mr Stephen Leach, who was due to lead
the delegation from the NIO, was unable to attend because of a family bereavement.
The Committee agreed to forward a letter of condolence to Mr Leach.
3.09pm: Mrs Lewsley left the meeting.
3.10pm: Mr Robinson joined the meeting.
3.40pm: Mr Robinson left the meeting.
6. Evidence session: The Committee on the Administration of Justice
3.40pm: The Chairperson called the witnesses to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Committee on the Administration
of Justice (CAJ) on the human rights aspects of the criminal justice reform
proposals. Representing CAJ were-
- Mr Martin O'Brien, Director;
- Mr Paul Mageean, Legal Officer; and
- Ms Maggie Beirne, Research & Policy Officer.
7. Any other business
No other matters were raised.
8. Date and time of next meeting
The Committee agreed that it would next meet at 2.30pm
on Tuesday, 11 December 2001.
4.15pm: The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA
CHAIRPERSON
11 December 2001
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 152 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Present: Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA, Chairperson
Mrs Eileen Bell MLA, Deputy Chairperson
Dr Esmond Birnie MLA
Mr Gregory Campbell MLA
Mr David Ervine MLA
Mrs Patricia Lewsley MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Pat McNamee MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
Attendees: Mr Tony Logue, Clerk of Ad hoc Committees
Mr Damien McVeigh
Apologies: Mr Alex Attwood MLA
Sir John Gorman MLA
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA
2.35pm: The meeting opened in private session-Mr Shipley Dalton
in the Chair.
1. Apologies
The apologies were noted. It was further noted
that the following members would be deputising Dr Birnie for Sir John Gorman;
Mrs Lewsley for Mr Attwood; and Mr McNamee for Mr McLaughlin.
2. Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Resolved, that the draft Minutes of Proceedings for
Tuesday, 4 December 2001 be agreed.
- Matters arising
Members noted a discussion paper tabled by the Clerk
identifying key issues for the Committee's draft Report to be discussed at
the Committee's next meeting.
2.38pm: Dr Birnie joined the meeting.
Mr Paisley enquired if there had been any written responses
from the Law Society or the Human Rights Commission in relation to points
raised during evidence. It was noted that no further papers had been
received.
Mr Maginness proposed that the Committee should write to Sir
John Gorman extending its best wishes and speedy recovery. It was agreed
that the Clerk would write to Sir John.
2.43pm: Mrs Bell and Mrs Lewsley joined the meeting.
2.45pm: The Chairperson declared the meeting to be in public
session.
- Evidence session: Probation Board for Northern Ireland
Mrs Bell declared that she was a member of the Probation Board
for Northern Ireland and that this interest was published in the Register of
Interests.
2.45pm: The Chairperson called the witnesses to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Probation Board for Northern
Ireland (PBNI). Representing PBNI were-
- Mr Brian Rowntree, Chairperson of the Board;
- Mr Oliver Brannigan, Chief Executive;
- Mr Brendan Fulton, Assistant Chief Probation Officer; and
- Ms Cheryl Lamont, Assistant Chief Probation Officer.
3.07pm: Mr Ervine left the meeting.
3.10pm: Mrs Nelis left the meeting.
3.10pm: The Chairperson suspended proceedings for 25 minutes
- division in the Assembly.
3.35pm: The Chairperson reconvened the meeting.
3.38pm: Mrs Bell left the meeting.
- Evidence session: The Criminal Bar Association
Mr Shipley Dalton and Mr Maginness declared that they are members
of the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and that interest has
been published in the Register of Interests.
3.55pm: The Chairperson called the witnesses to be examined.
Members heard evidence from the Criminal Bar Association (CBA).
Representing CBA were-
- Mr John Larkin, Vice-Chairperson;
- Mr Gordon Kerr
- Ms Tessa Kitson;
- Ms Geralyn McNally; and
- Mr Donal Sayers.
4.03pm: Mr McNamee left the meeting.
4.15pm: Mrs Lewsley left the meeting.
6. Any other business
The Chairperson requested leave of the Committee to permit the
internal publication of the papers prepared for their information by Research
and Library Services. The Committee had no objections.
7. Date and time of next meeting
The Committee agreed that it would next meet at 2.30pm
on Thursday, 13 December 2001.
4.38pm: The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA
CHAIRPERSON
13 December 2001
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER 2001
ROOM 135 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Present: Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA, Chairperson
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Mick Murphy MLA
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
Attendees: Mr Tony Logue, Clerk of Ad hoc Committees
Mr Damien McVeigh
Mr Hugh Widdis
Apologies: Mr Alex Attwood MLA
Mrs Eileen Bell MLA, Deputy Chairperson
Sir John Gorman MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
2.50pm: The meeting opened in private session-Mr Shipley Dalton
in the Chair.
1. Apologies
The apologies were noted. It was further noted
that Mr Murphy would be deputising for Mrs Nelis.
2. Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Resolved, that the draft Minutes of Proceedings for
Tuesday, 11 December 2001 be agreed.
- Matters arising
Members noted a research paper prepared by Research
and Library Services detailing the role of public prosecutors in Northern
Ireland and other jurisdictions.
- Written submissions
Members noted a written submission received on behalf
of Include Youth and the Children's Law Centre. It was agreed that
the submission be appended to the Committee's Report.
- Party submissions
Members noted position papers from the Alliance Party;
and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, it was further noted that
Sinn Fein had made a preliminary submission. It was agreed that parties
could make submissions up to the end of the Christmas recess period.
- Report of the Committee's Proceedings
Members noted a discussion paper, prepared by the Committee
Clerk, on possible issues to raise in the Committee's Report. Following deliberation,
it was agreed that the Committee Clerk should prepare a draft Report
for consideration at the Committee's next meeting.
- Any other business
The Chairperson informed members that he had received an invitation
from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Des Browne, to meet and discuss
issues that had been raised during the Committee's proceedings. It was agreed
that the Chairperson should accept this invitation and that the Committee
Clerk should be in attendance at that meeting.
- Date and time of next meeting
The Committee agreed that it would next meet at 11.30am
on Monday, 7 January 2002.
4.20pm: The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA
CHAIRPERSON
8 January 2002
TUESDAY 8 JANUARY 2002
ROOM 21 PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Present: Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA, Chairperson
Mrs Eileen Bell MLA, Deputy Chairperson
Sir John Gorman MLA
Mr David Ervine MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA
Attendees: Mr Tony Logue, Clerk of Ad hoc Committees
Mr Damien McVeigh
Apologies: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr MLA
10.10am: The meeting opened in private session-Mr Shipley Dalton
in the Chair.
1. Apologies
The apology was noted.
2. Draft Minutes of Proceedings
Resolved, that the draft Minutes of Proceedings for
Thursday, 13 December 2001 be agreed.
3. Matters arising
The Chairperson briefed members on his meeting with the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Des Browne, on 19 December 2001.
10.14am: Mrs Bell joined the meeting.
Members noted that a summary of Lord Glidewell's report
on the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service had been tabled.
4. Written submissions from witnesses
Members noted that further submissions had been received
from the Law Society of Northern Ireland; the Committee on the Administration
of Justice; and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It was agreed
that the submissions be appended to the Committee's Report.
5. Party submissions
Members noted position papers from the Democratic Unionist
Party and Sinn Fein. It was further noted that all party submissions
received would be appended to the Committee's Report.
6. Report of the Committee's Proceedings
Members noted a draft Report on the proceedings of the
Committee tabled at the meeting. It was agreed that the Committee Clerk
should read through each paragraph of the draft report and that members could
raise points to be discussed following each section.
Paragraphs 1 - 14 (Background to the Report) read and
agreed.
Paragraphs 15 - 43 (Report of the Criminal Justice Review Group)
read and agreed.
Paragraphs 44 - 45 (Committee's consideration of the proposed
legislation and the implementation plan) read and agreed.
Paragraphs 46 - 49 (Consultation period) read and agreed.
Recommendation 1 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 50 - 51 (Independence of the legal profession) read.
The Chairperson raised the concerns that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State had made in relation to the Committee's comments in these paragraphs.
Following debate, it was agreed that the comments should remain as drafted.
Recommendation 2 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 52 - 53 (Oversight of the implementation plan) read
and agreed.
Recommendation 3 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 54 - 55 read and agreed.
Paragraph 56 read. Mr McLaughlin proposed that, in paragraph
56, the word 'could' should be inserted after 'of the Assembly'. Following debate,
the amendment was agreed. Paragraph 56 read, as amended, and agreed.
Recommendation 4 read. It was agreed, as a consequence
to the amendment to paragraph 56, that recommendation 4 should be amended by
replacing the word 'establishes' with 'considers the establishment of'. Further
to this, Mr Ervine proposed that 'at the earliest opportunity' be inserted following
'Standing Committee. This proposed amendment was agreed. Recommendation
4 read, as amended, and agreed.
Paragraphs 57 - 58 (Human rights and guiding principles) read
and agreed.
Recommendation 5 read and agreed.
Paragraph 59 (Symbols and declarations) read and agreed.
Paragraphs 60 - 61 (Devolution of justice matters) read.
Members noted that the Committee Clerk had tabled an addendum to paragraphs
60 - 61. The addendum was read and it was agreed that it should
replace the original draft text. [The addendum introduced an addition paragraph,
consequently, paragraphs 62 - 64, as considered below, have been re-numbered
in the Committee's Report.]
Recommendation 6 read, as amended by the addendum to
the draft report, and agreed.
Recommendation 7 read. It was agreed, as a consequence
of the addendum to the draft report, that this recommendation should be deleted.
[As a consequence of this amendment, Recommendations 8 - 10, as considered
below, have been re-numbered in the Committee's Report.]
Paragraph 62 (Attorney General for Northern Ireland) read
and agreed.
Recommendation 8 read and agreed.
Paragraph 63 read and agreed.
Paragraph 64 read. Mr McLaughlin proposed that this paragraph
be deleted. Following debate, it was agreed that paragraph 64 be deleted.
Recommendation 9 read and agreed.
Paragraphs 65 - 66 (Public Prosecution Service) read
and agreed.
Recommendation 10 read and agreed.
Paragraph 67 read and agreed. Mr McLaughlin proposed
that a new recommendation be inserted to reflect the Committee's comments in
this paragraph. It was agreed that this recommendation should be made.
Paragraphs 68 - 69 (Role of the Probation Board for Northern
Ireland) read and agreed.
Recommendation 11 read and agreed.
Paragraph 70 (Openness and transparency) read. Members
noted that the Committee Clerk had tabled an addendum to paragraph 70.
The addendum was read and it was agreed that it should replace
the original draft text.
Recommendation 12 read. It was agreed, as a consequence
of the addendum to the draft report, that this recommendation should be deleted.
[As a consequence of this amendment, Recommendations 13 - 17, as considered
below, have been re-numbered in the Committee's Report.]
11.00am: Mr McLaughlin left the meeting.
Paragraph 71 read and agreed.
Recommendation 13 read and agreed.
Paragraph 72 (Restorative justice) read and agreed.
Recommendation 14 read and agreed.
Paragraph 73 read and agreed.
Recommendation 15 read and agreed.
Paragraph 74 read and agreed.
Recommendations 16 - 17 read and agreed. Mr Ervine
proposed that a new recommendation should be appended to this section to highlight
the possible role that could be played by the suggested Standing Committee on
Criminal Justice in this area. Following debate, it was agreed that this
recommendation be made.
Paragraph 75 (Conclusion) read and agreed.
Mrs Nelis proposed that the terms of reference of the Criminal
Justice Review Group should be included in the Committee's Report. Following
debate, it was agreed that the terms of reference be inserted after paragraph
15.
Following the reading of the draft report, the Chairperson put
the question without further debate-
Resolved, that the Committee orders the report, as amended,
to be printed.
7. Any other business
The Chairperson proposed that he have leave of the Committee
to approve the draft Minutes of Evidence of the Committee's proceedings and
the Minutes of Proceedings for 8 January 2002.
Resolved, that the Chairperson shall have leave to approve
the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings.
8. Date and time of next meeting
The Committee agreed that it would not hold any further
meetings.
11.17am: The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton MLA
CHAIRPERSON
8 January 2002
top
APPENDIX 2
LIST OF WITNESSES
The Committee on the Administration of Justice
Mr Martin O'Brien, Director;
Mr Paul Mageean, Legal Officer; and
Ms Maggie Beirne, Research & Policy Officer.
The Criminal Bar Association
Mr John Larkin, Vice-Chairperson;
Mr Gordon Kerr;
Ms Tessa Kitson;
Ms Geralyn McNally; and
Mr Donal Sayers.
The Law Society of Northern Ireland
Mr John Neill, Senior Vice-President; and
Mr John Bailie, Chief Executive.
The Northern Ireland Courts Service
Mr David Lavery, Director; and
Mr Tommy O'Reilly, Head of Corporate Services.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Prof. Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner; and
Dr Linda Moore, Investigations worker.
The Northern Ireland Office
Mr Brian White, Head of Criminal Justice Policy Division;
Mr Stephen Webb, Head of Criminal Justice Review Implementation
Team; and
Mr Mark McGuckin, Head of Criminal Justice Services Division.
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland
Mr Brian Rowntree, Chairperson;
Mr Oliver Brannigan, Chief Executive;
Mr Brendan Fulton, Assistant Chief Probation Officer; and
Ms Cheryl Lamont, Assistant Chief Probation Officer.
top
APPENDIX 3
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Thursday 29 November 2001
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
The Law Society of Northern Ireland 49
Tuesday 4 December 2001
The Northern Ireland Court Service and The Northern Ireland
Office
The Committee on the Administration of Justice
Tuesday 11 December 2001
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland
The Criminal Bar Association 79
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Thursday 29 November 2001
Members present:
Mr Dalton (Chairperson)
Mrs E Bell (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr A Maginness
Mr Campbell
Sir John Gorman
Mr McLaughlin
Mr Paisley Jnr
Mr J Kelly
Witnesses:
Prof B Dickson ) Northern Ireland Human
Dr L Moore ) Rights Commission
- The Chairperson: Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your
time.
- Mrs E Bell: I know both of the witnesses personally, and I have to
declare that as an interest. They are my friends.
- Mr Dalton: All Members should have received copies of your written
submission. I would like you to address that, and then Members will ask questions.
- Prof Dickson: Thank you. I will pick out some of the points made
in the submission you received this morning. I want to reiterate that it is
a preliminary document. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC)
has not had an opportunity to study the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
in detail, and I will have to reserve the right to alter some of the views
expressed in the document in the light of further discussion within the NIHRC.
- We welcome the publication of the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill,
although it is late in the day. However, we are disappointed that human rights
have not been put at the centre of the draft Bill in the same way they were
in the Criminal Justice Review of March 2000. Indeed, if you look at the index
of the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan and correlate the number
of recommendations with the number of clauses in the draft Bill which implement
them, you will see that the first 16 recommendations dealing with human rights
have not been reflected in the draft Bill at all. Some of them are being implemented
in other ways. However, we regret the lack of centrality of human rights in
the draft Bill.
- We have noted that many parts of the draft Bill are dependent on the devolution
of criminal justice to the Assembly. While we understand the political reason
for that, from a human rights point of view there is no merit in delaying simply
because a different Parliament happens to be responsible for the matter.
- We would have liked to see a statutory statement of the aims of the criminal
justice system; one of those aims ought to be the promotion and protection
of human rights.
- In part I of the draft Bill, dealing with the judiciary, we would like further
reference to be made to the relevant international standards. One of the objectives
of the Human Rights Commission is to have the international standards on human
rights applied at every level of Northern Irish society; especially as the
UK Government have agreed to abide by these standards at the international
level. We are simply ensuring that those standards are locally implemented.
We refer to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary and have cited principle 2, which is particularly worth including
in the draft Bill. We want appointments to the proposed judicial appointments
commission (JAC) to be made after a properly advertised and rigorously objective
selection system. That would apply particularly to the lay members who are
to be appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
- The procedures contained in clause 4 for the appointment of the Lord Chief
Justice seem to be unduly cumbersome and convoluted. We do not see why the
judicial appointments commission should not be responsible for making recommendations
to the Queen on whom to appoint. There are further difficulties with the proposed
tribunal to consider the removal of judges and also the apparently separate
- although that is not made clear in the draft Bill - tribunal to deal with
complaints against judges.
- Part II of the draft Bill deals with prosecution. On our initial reading
of the draft Bill, there are several respects in which the recommendations
of the review do not seem to have been implemented. For example, paragraph
19 of our document points out that the review recommended that it should be
an offence to seek to influence a prosecutor not to pursue a case. That does
not seem to have implemented in the draft Bill. Likewise, paragraph 20 stresses
that the review recommended that, in certain situations, the prosecutor should
seek to give as full an explanation as possible as to why there has been no
prosecution in a particular case. Again, that does not seem to have been implemented.
We refer to the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, which we want to
see incorporated, at least in part, in the proposed code of ethics for prosecutors.
- Part III deals with the chief inspector and the Northern Ireland Law Commission
(NILC), but does not specify what standards the chief inspector is to apply
when carrying out inspections. One of those standards should be the protection
of internationally accepted human rights. As regards NILC, the draft Bill preserves
too much power in the Secretary of State to control the work of the Law Commission.
That role will presumably transfer to the First Minister and the Deputy First
Minister after devolution of justice matters. Dr Moore will speak about Part
IV of the draft Bill.
- Dr Moore: The NIHRC is disappointed that the draft Bill does not
raise the age of criminal responsibility. We understand that the criminal justice
review document did not, in fact, recommend that the age be raised, but the
NIHRC's view is that international standards demand a higher age of criminal
responsibility.
- I should correct a point in our paper, which stated that the bill of rights
proposes that the age of criminal responsibility be raised to age 14. In fact,
we at the NIHRC have proposed that the age of criminal responsibility be raised
to at least 12. We are currently consulting on whether that should be higher.
An amended copy of the paper will be sent to the Committee.
- Clause 49 of the draft Bill sets out the aims of the youth justice system.
In particular, the draft Bill states that the aim of the youth justice system
is to protect the public by preventing offending by children. That does not
comply with the criminal justice review, which recommended that the statement
of principles should have due regard to international standards to which the
UK has given a commitment. Those standards include, for example, the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Administration of Juvenile Justice, or "Beijing Rules". Those guidelines
stress the principles of re-education, rehabilitation and the child's right
to play a constructive role in society. The guidelines also stress that society
itself has a duty to the child, as well as stressing the child's responsibility.
The NIHRC wants to see that reviewed.
- Clause 49(3) also says that all persons and bodies exercising functions
in relation to the youth justice system must have regard to the "welfare" of
children. That does not comply with international standards, particularly the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stresses the principle of the
"best interest" of every child. The convention states that the best interests
of the child shall be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting the
child. Again, the NIHRC is unhappy with that.
- We welcome the definition of children in clause 49(6), as
"persons who are under the age of 18."
It also welcomes the extension of the juvenile justice system
to 17-year olds. We welcome the fact that 17-year olds will be included in
the remit of the youth courts. However, we remain concerned about 17-year
olds being held in young offenders' centres, and we disagreed with the criminal
justice review group whose recommendation that was.
- The NIHRC is also concerned that children as young as 15 can be remanded
in young offenders' centres under the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order
1998. The NIHRC would have liked to have seen that power repealed in the new
legislation, as it is contrary to international standards, which state clearly
that children in detention must be held separately from adults.
- As Prof Dickson said, the NIHRC has not had a chance to study the new reparation
orders and community responsibility orders in detail. It welcomes the focus
on reparation and community service in principle. The NIHRC has concerns about
the training needs of those who are involved in supervising the young people
under these orders. They can be probation officers, social workers or others
designated by the Secretary of State. It is important that those people be
properly trained to deal with young people who have disturbed behaviour.
- Children who are under reparation orders will be subject to a report carried
out by the officer, whether that is the probation officer or the social worker.
It is important that the report considers an analysis of the child's needs,
including his or her psychological needs. That is not included in the legislation
at present.
- I would like to correct point 34 of our written submission, which should
say
"The Commission welcomes the fact that children aged 10 to 13 who are found
guilty of criminal offences will not be held in juvenile justice centres,
but we would prefer this goal to be achieved through the raising of the age
of criminal responsibility to 14."
The NIHRC concerned that children aged 10 to 13 can be remanded
in juvenile justice centres, and, in particular, that children can be sent
to juvenile justice centres under Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) legislation.
At present under PACE, children as young as 12 may be sent to Lisnevin Juvenile
Justice Centre and held there overnight. That can be frightening for the children
involved. There is concern that the juvenile justice centres are used as holding
centres, rather than places of rehabilitation. We would have liked the legislation
to address that.
- The NIHRC is concerned about the name of the custody care orders in clause
52. It is to be hoped that staff in secure care accommodation will be consulted
about how they feel their role will change if the secure accommodation has
a function of custody, as well as of care. There is also concern about the
availability of secure-care beds. As the Committee may know, lay magistrates
have raised serious concerns about the lack of availability of secure beds,
which has already led to the death of a fifteen-year-old boy, for whom no suitable
accommodation was available. We fail to see how the legislation will address
that issue. Sending more children to the secure-care facilities without suitable
provision might make the situation worse.
- The NIHRC is also concerned about potential stigma that could be attached
to children in care, if some children in secure care are there under custody
care orders, while others are there purely for care reasons. There is no wish
to see a return to the old training-school system.
- Finally, the NIHRC welcomes the principle of youth conferencing, but needs
time to study the provisions in detail.
- Prof Dickson: I do not have much more to say about part V of the
draft Bill. We have yet to reach a view on clause 62, which deals with the
display of the Royal Arms in courtrooms. We welcome victim information schemes
in principle, but it is important to ensure that a balance is reached between
the rights of victims and the rights of ex-prisoners.
- In clause 67, there should be a requirement - rather than a permissive power
- for the Secretary of State to establish the local community safety partnerships.
They should be broadly representative of the community as required by section
75 of the Northern Ireland Act.
- We welcome the suggested changes to the legal aid scheme. However, we would
still like to have the right to funding from the legal aid scheme for coroner's
inquests, subject to financial eligibility tests.
- The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
- Mr A Maginness: Looking at the overall proposal and the balance between
lay members and members of the judiciary on the judicial appointments commission,
do you think it is weighted more heavily in favour of judicial representation
rather than lay representation? A lot of power for future appointments will
reside with the judiciary. Have you a view on that?
- Prof Dickson: We have not looked at that in detail. Of the 13 proposed
members of the commission, six would be judges and seven would not. However,
two of the seven are eligible to be judges, as one is a senior barrister and
the other a senior solicitor. We are content that the majority of the members
of the commission will be non-judges. We would like a proper selection system
- especially of the lay people - prior to any nominations, even those who are
to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. Those eventually appointed should
have the required competence.
- Mr A Maginness: As regards the actual appointment of judges by the
commission, have you any comment on the absence in the draft Bill of a statutory
requirement in relation to the judges, as a body of professionals, being reflective
of the community in a religious and political sense?
- Prof Dickson: We raised that point in our submission to the criminal
justice review and in our response to the criminal justice review. We have
noted, and are concerned, that that is not reflected in the draft Bill. We
are not a body that believes that the judges should be representative of society,
but we would use the word that you used - "reflective" of society.
- Mr A Maginness: Do you think that there is a deficiency in the draft
Bill, in that that is not put into statutory form as a criterion for the commission
to meet when appointing judges?
- Prof Dickson: We are concerned about that, and we are also concerned
about the lack of criteria in general, and the lack of specificity regarding
the process by which the commission would go about appointing judges. That
does not seen to be dealt with in any significant detail.
- Mr A Maginness: Thank you very much.
- Sir John Gorman: I get the impression form reading this document,
and from what you have said, that you feel a sense of resentment about this,
that human rights is not mentioned in capital letters. Is that correct?
- Prof Dickson: Resentment is the wrong word.
- Sir John Gorman: Disappointment?
- Prof Dickson: Disappointment. We are, after all, a statutory body
charged with promoting and protecting human rights, and that is our concern
when we are commenting on any draft legislation. Given the centrality of the
concept within the review report 18 months ago, or longer, which we welcomed
and understood was widely acclaimed throughout Northern Ireland, we think that
the Draft Bill disappoints in that respect.
- Sir John Gorman: The review was obviously something that you put
much effort into. The first few paragraphs of your submission are not even
mentioned here.
- Prof Dickson: That is exactly right. One of the research reports
produced for the review went into significant detail on human rights standards.
It reproduced them in full text. We expected significant reference to be made
to those texts in the draft Bill itself. We are disappointed that that has
not happened, especially as those are texts that the British Government have
already agreed to abide by, but have not incorporated into domestic law.
- Sir John Gorman: Presumably this is a criticism that could be corrected
after consultation?
- Prof Dickson: Yes, I would hope so.
- Sir John Gorman: The chief inspector of criminal justice is going
to be an important person in all matters of criminal investigation, et cetera.
Clause 42(2) of the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, in relation to his
power to carry out inspections, worries me slightly. It says:
"But the Chief Inspector must not carry out inspections of an organisation
if he is satisfied that the organisation is subject to adequate inspection
by someone other than him."
You might imagine that that refers to Her Majesty's Inspector
of Constabulary. Taking a pessimistic view of the way things work in life,
might it not be possible to have a chief inspector falling out with Her Majesty's
inspector and saying that these people are not at all suitable? What happens
then? Could a fracture arise between the role of Her Majesty's inspector and
that of the chief inspector? We are talking about double negatives here, which
is always a complicated thing to do. Do you see my point?
- Prof Dickson: I do. The Human Rights Commission's initial view would
be that clause 42(2) strikes an appropriate balance. It discourages duplication
of effort and wastage of public money through doing the same thing twice, if
not three times. Yet it leaves the door open to a second inspection to be carried
out in situations where the chief inspector of criminal justice believes that
an inspection that has occurred was not thorough enough.
- Sir John Gorman: But he cannot actually carry it out?
- Prof Dickson: Only if he is satisfied - [Interruption].
- Sir John Gorman: What if he is not satisfied?
- Prof Dickson: If he is not satisfied, presumably he can carry out
an inspection. If he thinks that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
or Inspector of Prisons has not done a good enough job, then the chief inspector
of criminal justice - [Interruption].
- Sir John Gorman: It appears to me that perhaps more felicitous wording
might be used there, so that we do not use double negatives, et cetera.
- Prof Dickson: Yes, that is correct.
- Sir John Gorman: The third thing that I would like to ask your view
on is the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions outlined in clause 29.
I was a senior member of the RUC for 15 years. I have the greatest worry about
that particular clause. The explanatory notes state that:
"the Director will have a duty to take over all prosecutions instituted
by the police. On commencement the Director will take over responsibility
for all prosecutions instituted by the police."
Presumably "commencement" means the commencement of the function
of the Act - or does it means when the power is devolved? It is a bit unclear.
- How realistic is that role? Even if the level of crime falls, we would be
talking about tens of thousands of prosecutions. How could that be done? I
have made enquiries, and I found that the Director of Public Prosecutions would
have a staff of 150. How practical is this system?
- Prof Dickson: Resources that are currently being used in the Police
Service will have to be diverted to the new office of the prosecution service.
One of the central recommendations of the criminal justice review was that
the police should cease to have responsibility for prosecutions. The review
recommended that there should be one central prosecution service, which is
something that the Human Rights Commission strongly supports.
- If your information is that the prosecution service will be under-resourced,
I agree that that is a serious matter. However, in principle, we support the
idea that the prosecution service should take over responsibility for all prosecutions
that, until now, were carried out by the police.
- Mr McLaughlin: You made a very good point about the issue of human
rights, and I assume that you have addressed the matter in further detail in
your more substantial submission. The issue of human rights training for the
judiciary does not seem to be properly addressed by the implementation plan
or the draft legislation. It is made clear that such training would be voluntary.
That issue arises from my party's concern about the independence of the appointment
process of the judiciary. Hopefully that issue will be addressed in the legislative
process. We are concerned that human rights training is done on a voluntary
basis, given that we are attempting to resolve the issue of alienation from
the judicial process which came about because of our unfortunate history. Could
you comment on that?
- Prof Dickson: The Human Rights Commission wants the criteria that
are adopted by the judicial appointments commission to include a reference
to a knowledge of, or expertise in, human rights law. As we said in paragraph
14 of our paper, the draft Bill should make provision for initial and in-service
training for the judiciary. The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) has done good
work in training judges on the Human Rights Act 1998, in the past couple of
years. However, that training should be placed on a statutory footing and given
more resources so that all levels of the judiciary, from the lay magistrates
to the top, can be made more aware of developments on the human rights front.
- Mr McLaughlin: You referred to a commissioner to oversee the system,
as we had in the policing situation. My party is not entirely satisfied with
the remit that was developed in that case. Recommendation 95 is applied to
the judicial appointment process. Clearly, like my party, you envisage the
development of a much broader role. Do you intend to address that further in
your more substantial submission?
- Prof Dickson: Yes. Paragraph six of our paper states that someone
should be appointed to oversee the implementation of the reforms. Given their
size and importance, the reforms are comparable to the recent policing reforms.
Much depends on proper implementation, so we shall embellish that point in
our next paper.
- Mr McLaughlin: You referred to the word "realm" as one you could
envisage creating difficulties. Is "jurisdiction" a more appropriate word than
that used in the draft legislation?
- Prof Dickson: You are referring to paragraph 13 of our paper. It is
not so much the word "realm" to which we currently object. It is
the fact that, as far as I am aware, Northern Ireland itself is not a realm,
but merely part of one; it is important that the oath's wording be accurate.
The laws and usages of this part of the realm are different from those of
other areas. I can see that the word "jurisdiction" might be more
appropriate.
- Mr J Kelly: I share your disappointment that human rights have not
been put at the centre of the reforms as the review recommended. Indeed, in
paragraph 5 of your initial comments you say
"Perhaps the most glaring omission in the early part of the draft Bill is
the failure to include any statement of the aims of the criminal justice system."
One such aim should clearly be to promote the protection of
human rights, and I should welcome that too. I echo Mr McLaughlin's comments
on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I shall quote from paragraph 6
of your initial comments.
"In its recommendation no. 95, the Review envisaged the appointment
of some such person in the specific context of appointment to judicial posts."
Are you putting those two together?
- In paragraph 18 of your initial comments on part II of the draft Bill, you
say that
"The Review recommended (No. 45) that there should be no power in the
attorney General to direct the DPP."
It is not clear from clause 37 that this recommendation
is clearly implemented. How should that be done?
- I shall quote from paragraph 19 of your initial comments.
"The Review recommended (No. 46) that it should be an offence to seek to
influence the prosecutor not to pursue a case."
Ought there also to be some recommendation regarding the pursuit
of a frivolous or quasi-political case?
- Paragraph 20 states that
"The Review recommended (No. 49) that in certain situations the prosecutor
should seek to give as full an explanation as possible as to why there has
been no prosecution."
Should that not also apply to reasons why there was a prosecution?
- Prof Dickson: In paragraph 6, we simply refer to the fact that
the criminal justice review envisaged appointing someone to perform a supervisory
function in one specific context, albeit on an interim basis, until a judicial
appointments commission had been set up. We are simply recommending that that
principle be extended to the implementation of the whole draft Bill.
- Mr J Kelly: In paragraph 18 of your initial comments it states
"The Review recommended (No. 45) that there should be no power in the
attorney General to direct the DPP."
- Prof Dickson: I shall have to apologise both to the Director of Public
Prosecutions and the Attorney General, but I find the relationship between
those two bodies somewhat arcane and difficult to understand. We may be getting
matters slightly wrong, but the review itself recommended that there be no
power in the Attorney General to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If that is the intention of clause 37, that does not seem clear on the
face of it. We very much support the independence of the Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions.
- Mr J Kelly: You would recommend it.
- Prof Dickson: Indeed, for the Attorney General has a more
quasi-political role to play and should not influence the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP).
- I shall turn to your points regarding paragraphs 19 and 20. I do not
see why the reforms we recommend and which the review recommended should not
extend to situations where a prosecution is being pursued rather than not being
pursued. Our own experience of trying to obtain information about the lack
of prosecution from the current Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
has been very bad. We note that the courts themselves have been very reluctant
to order the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to disclose reasons
for not prosecuting. That is regrettable in an open society.
- Mr J Kelly: I asked that question because there is a perception -
perhaps a false one - that the DPP's office pursues cases for political or
other reasons.
- Mrs E Bell: I appreciate that your submission comprises initial comments.
My party is still looking through the draft Bill and implementation plan. At
this stage, I will confine my questions to your submission. We can obtain further
information in writing.
- Paragraph 12 of the submission deals with complaints against judges. It
states
"It is not clear who would be entitled to sit on such a tribunal".
I share the Commission's concerns. Do you agree that there
is a need for a more transparent mechanism for complaints that would serve
the practical purpose of letting the public know that complaints are being
dealt with effectively? We have already discussed perceptions that can sometimes
restrict a good judicial process. Other than the Lord Chief Justice, have
you any other suggestions about who should prepare the code of practice? Will
you suggest someone, or do you believe that responsibility should not land
on that position?
- You have expressed concern about addressing the needs of young people who
are subject to community service and reparation orders. As a member of the
Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI), I share those concerns. Are you
suggesting that responsibility for that issue should be extended to the
Probation Board, which already has a duty of care and already carries out a
certain amount of that work? Alternatively, do you believe that another
organisation should be set up to deal with the matter - particularly where
young people are involved? What do you think will happen to the growing
number of children under 10 years of age, and aged 10 to 14, who
unfortunately offend in a large number of areas? Where do you suggest they
go?
- Prof Dickson: I will ask my colleague Dr Moore to respond to the
questions about youth justice. The Commission welcomes the introduction of
a code of practice, and a tribunal to deal with complaints about judges. We
have received numerous complaints about how judges treat people in court. It
is appropriate to set up a proper complaints system. We have not given detailed
consideration to who, other than the Lord Chief Justice, should draw up the
code of practice or sit on the tribunal. However, we will call for considerable
lay membership or non-judicial membership of any such tribunal to ensure that
the ordinary person on the street is represented.
- Dr Moore: I hope I have understood your question correctly - you
asked if the Probation Board would be responsible for the community service
order.
- Mrs E Bell: The Probation Board already carries out a great deal
of that type of work. I believe it will be made a Next Steps agency when devolution
of functions is introduced. However, at the moment there is a considerable
resource problem. Devolution of functions will be a matter for the Assembly
when the time comes. In the meantime, what will happen - as you know, the number
of young offenders is on the increase?
- Dr Moore: We agree that that is a problem in that the draft Bill
states that, for example, a social worker can be responsible for either a reparation
order or a community service order. However, we know that the social services
and social workers are stretched, and it is not clear from the draft Bill,
or the implementation plan, where the extra resources and training for workers
will come from.
- There must be emphasis on diversionary measures for children in the
juvenile justice system if international standards are to be met, and the
state has a duty to implement those rights for young people. It is incumbent
upon the state to provide more money for resourcing that diversionary work.
In turn, that will save money because custody is the most expensive part of
the system.
- Mrs E Bell: Committee members, as local representatives, often come
across young people who have committed drugs offences - and those are not just
minor offences. You said that you wanted the age at which young people are
to be considered as juvenile to be raised. I will be happy to receive a written
answer on that.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: Are you familiar with the term "trainspotting"?
- Prof Dickson: Yes.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: How many of your objections are serious and how
many would fall into the trainspotting mode? You made comments in paragraph
13 on "language". A vast amount of public money is lavished upon
your organisation, and you come up with that. Are you serious?
- Prof Dickson: Paragraph 13 is one of 43 paragraphs in the document.
I am not for a moment pretending that it is the most important, but I have
made the point that it is technically incorrect because Northern Ireland is
not, as I understand it, a realm.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: I do not suggest that Northern Ireland is, but
perhaps it is an emphasis on language or semantics. Overall, would it be
fair to say that you are more dissatisfied with the draft Bill than you are
satisfied?
- Prof Dickson: No. On balance, the commission is very pleased that
the criminal justice system is being reformed in various ways. There is much
very good material in the draft Bill, building upon what was in the report
of March 2000. You can appreciate that for the purposes of today we have accentuated
the negative aspects. We have drawn the Committee's attention to parts of the
draft Bill that we are not totally happy with, but there is, nevertheless,
a great deal in it that we approve of.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: It is perhaps hard to quantify, but you are more
satisfied than you are dissatisfied.
- Prof Dickson: Yes, I think that is probably fair.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: I would have thought that if there were a
fundamental failure to address human rights in your words
"centrally" that that would probably have thrown the whole draft
Bill into some sort of disarray. But that does not seem to be the case.
- Prof Dickson: Putting clauses that deal specifically with human rights
into the draft Bill is going to make it more likely that the rest of it, including
its very good provisions, will be applied in a way that keeps human rights
in the forefront of the minds of those responsible for applying it. As the
report in March 2000 emphasised, if the principles of human rights were placed
up front in the aims and objectives of the different criminal justice agencies,
it would then be more likely that when those agencies carried out their functions,
as laid out in the draft Bill, they would comply with human rights standards.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: So you think that the failure to address the issue
centrally can be easily overcome.
- Prof Dickson: By the insertion of extra clauses, yes.
- Mr Paisley Jnr: Are you currently drafting proposed clauses?
- Prof Dickson: We will be making recommendations in that regard.
