1. General

   1. Within the limitations of their terms of reference (which excluded policing and emergency legislation), the Review Group has produced a report, which if fully implemented in all its recommendations, will have a far-reaching and constructive impact upon the Criminal Justice system in Northern Ireland.

   2. We are impressed by the fact that the report is strongly set in the context of international standards of human rights and fully anticipates the Human Rights Act (incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights) which is due to become law in October 2000.

   3. While we are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the recommendations in the report, particularly with regard to the Prosecution, the Courts, the Judiciary, Victims and Witnesses, we have some reservations in the areas of Restorative and Reparative Justice.

   4. We also feel strongly that the Probation Board for Northern Ireland should be retained in its present form and should not be converted into a Next Step Agency, as recommended in the Report.

   5. We set out below our detailed comments using the headings of the relevant chapters in the report.

2. Rights and Principles

   1. We note with satisfaction the assertion that respect for human rights and dignity should be the core value of the criminal justice system and that the principles, and values of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should be founded upon and meet internationally recognised standards. It is also reassuring to note that international standards of human rights have guided the Review Group throughout their work.

   2. We welcome the recommendation that human rights issues should become a permanent part of training programmes for all those who work within criminal justice agencies, the legal profession and the relevant parts of the voluntary sector.

   3. Recommendation 5 of the report states:

      We recommend that the Criminal Justice Board and its research sub-committee be tasked with developing and implementing a strategy for equity monitoring the criminal justice system as it affects categories of people, in particular by community background, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and disability; whilst ensuring that this is done in a way that does not compromise judicial independence.

   4. The Alliance Party urges the Government to go further than simply monitoring the criminal justice system as it affects these categories. We have already presented a paper to HM Government calling for the introduction of Hate Crime legislation to allow for the enhancement of sentences where bias against victims meeting the categories set out above can be established as a material fact in court. In this way, the criminal justice system can take a proactive role in bias against persons based on their community background, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or disability.

3. The Prosecution

   1. We are pleased to see the recommendations in this area, which are long overdue. As the report generally recognises, it is most important that in a deeply divided society like Northern Ireland, fairness and independence of the prosecution should not only exist but be clearly seen to exist.

   2. In that context, we strongly endorse the recommendation for a new Public Prosecution Service to take over all prosecutions in Northern Ireland including those hitherto dealt with by the police with arrangements being made for the integration into the new Service of the staff of the Central Process Offices in Armagh and Derry. In our view the recommendations generally regarding the prosecution admirably provide for its independence, accountability and transparency. It is clearly right that the investigative function should remain essentially the responsibility of the police.

   3. We observe with approval the recommendation that the powers contained in Article 6 (3) of the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 be retained. We also welcome the recommendation that Article 6 be supplemented with a provision enabling the prosecutor to refer a case to the Police Ombudsman for investigation where he or she is not satisfied with an Article 6 (3) response. It is right too that as recommended a duty should be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully and completely investigated. In our view, the Police Ombudsman should carry out any such investigation. It is also our view that in the event of the prosecutor exercising his or her discretion to use in court evidence, which has been obtained by police malpractice, an obligation should rest on the prosecutor to inform the defence at an early stage that the evidence was so. It is right that the defence be so forewarned so that they can take any steps they consider appropriate to attempt to have the evidence excluded.

   4. We welcome the recommendations, which seek to improve the system currently operated by the police for diverting offenders away from the court process, e.g. by way of warning or caution. If the recommended prosecutorial fine is to be adopted then in our view, the offender must always be given the option of going to court.

   5. However, it should be noted that there is a general crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland in that the rule of law has not been upheld and seen to be upheld especially in relation to the challenges posed by institutionalised paramilitarism in the form of paramilitary attacks (colloquially known as so-called `punishment beatings and shootings), racketeering and drug-dealing. These problems also include the erection of flags promoting illegal paramilitary organisations and painting, and open paramilitary displays, and from disputes surrounding parades and associated illegal blocking of roads. There is a need for a co-ordinated approach for enforcing the law, especially in these respects, in which not only the police but the prosecution service can play an important role.

4. Courts and the Judiciary

   1. In this area, we particularly welcome the recommendation for the establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, the structure and manner in which it would operate and also the procedures and machinery, which are recommended to be adopted on devolution of responsibility for judicial appointments.

   2. It is also important, as the Report indicates, that efforts are made to broaden the traditional composition of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland to make it more reflective of the community, including in terms of gender, consistent with the overriding requirement of appointment on merit.

   3. We are glad to see the Report's endorsement of the view that extensive experience of advocacy should not be regarded as a prerequisite of success in a judicial capacity and that practice and/or standing requirements for recruitment to all levels of the bench should not differentiate between barristers and solicitors. We agree that while experience and ability as an advocate may well be an indicator of suitability for judicial office, litigation experience would be of equal significance. We also agree that acquisition of silk (appointment as a QC) should not be a pre-requisite of appointment to the High Court bench.

   4. We do not believe that this change to appointments to the Judiciary by Commission should take place only when justice functions and legislative capacity has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. The recommendation of the creation of a commission goes a long way in ensuring a more transparent appointment process. Such a commission should not then await further developments of the political process but should be put in place now.

   5. We agree with the recommended modern judicial oath to be sworn at appointment to the bench and with the recommendations aimed at making the courts more user-friendly, through the removal of signs and symbols that can be construed as "unwelcoming".

   6. The Report rightly emphasises the importance of judicial training both on induction and an ongoing basis. Such training should be mandatory.

   7. As many academics have noted, Northern Ireland Courts have adopted an overall restrictive approach to arguments invoking the ECHR. In light of this history combined with the incorporation of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the forthcoming introduction of a Northern Bill of Rights, it is imperative that Northern Ireland judges place human rights ant the heart of their deliberations. Training will enable this necessary shift in attitude and as such must be strongly encouraged for sitting judges.

   8. The Report rightly recognises that in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, there should be no change from the current system in Magistrate's Courts where a professional lawyer, acting as Magistrate, sits alone in adjudicating at summary adult trials. We agree that Resident Magistrates should be renamed District Judges.

   9. We consider it to be of the utmost importance that jury trials are retained in criminal cases. However, we concur with the Report's view that there are aspects of jury trials that should be reviewed including inter alias measures to prevent intimidation of jurors and the role of juries in particular classes of case.

   10. We wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations of the report in regards to courts. The simplification of dress worn in court and the use of language easily understood by lay people will help, we hope, to make the administration of criminal justice much more accessible and understandable by the general public. The assumption of full responsibility for security by the Court Service, the removal of all symbols in the interior of courtrooms, and the facilitation of interpreters will ensure that the courts are a more welcoming environment for people regardless of their community or ethnic background. With respect to the flying of the Union Flag, we agree that it should continue in line with the practice to be established by the Secretary of State. Our position on this matter is contained in our letter to the Secretary of State.

   11. We agree generally with the recommendations in this area. In particular, we strongly endorse the Review Group's view that they cannot support schemes which act outside the criminal justice system and are not linked to the criminal justice system.

   12. As such we are in full agreement with paragraph 9.96:

       We are also aware there can be a thin line between voluntarily agreed measures where an offence is committed on the one hand, and community-based schemes that effectively determine guilt and impose sanctions. These concerns do not mean that the state should ignore, or worse still, seek to stifle the undoubted energy and commitment of those in the community who wish to make a real contribution to dealing with crime in their locality. Nor is it for us to comment on those schemes that are directed at dealing with non-criminal behaviour, such as the mediation of civil disputes. It does, however, mean that those within the community who wish to contribute to the way in which criminal activity is dealt with should work in partnership with, take referrals from and be subject to accreditation and monitoring by the criminal justice system if the rights of individuals, both offenders and victims, are to be protected and upheld.

   13. As is indicated in the Report, community restorative justice schemes, especially for juveniles and young offenders, can have a role in dealing with low level crime as long as they are clearly linked to the criminal justice system. It is preferable that custodial sentences should be avoided where possible, given not only the costs concerned, but also the poor record of detention centres in reforming young people.

   14. However, in Northern Ireland, there has been a long, sad history of non-state bodies, i.e. paramilitary organisations trying to engage in community policing activities. People have been targeted without regard for due process under the law. Claims of anti-social or criminal activity have not been substantiated; often persons have been singled out for crossing the paramilitary godfathers. The so-called punishments are barbaric and constitute torture. In essence, these organisations act as judge, jury and executioner and have no regard for international human rights standards.

   15. It is this legacy that creates suspicions over many restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland, particularly bearing in mind that many of them are operated by people formally and currently associated with paramilitary organisations and presently function in isolation of the criminal justice system.

   16. Accordingly, there are fears that either victims or offenders could be or feel directly or indirectly coerced into participating in restorative justice schemes. Participation needs to be demonstrably voluntary and transparent. Furthermore, there is a need for those working such scheme.

   17. We do not feel that the relationship between restorative justice schemes and the criminal justice system can be allowed to grow organically as suggested by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) in their response to this Review.

   18. While appreciating the reasoning behind the conditions set out in the Report for recognition of community restorative justice schemes and our own arguments above, we feel it is important to make every reasonable effort to bring under the umbrella of the criminal justice system as many such schemes as possible. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland with its long experience of working with juveniles and young offenders in the community could be used to link existing schemes with the criminal justice system.

   19. Restorative Justice schemes are important in offering victims some form of redress as well as re-integrating offenders back into the community. These benefits are clearly recognised and articulated by the Report. It is surprising then that the Report envisages such benefits as apply only to the juvenile system. We would urge that the whole of the criminal justice system adopt restorative justice schemes where appropriate and feasible.

5. Community Safety

   1. We applaud the recognition by the Report that Community Safety encompasses more than the concept of crime prevention but is a wider approach that works best when applied to a variety of organisations. While agreeing that the best programmes will be local ones, we suggest that for community safety be given more prominence amongst government agencies by asking all agencies and departments to carry out an audit on how they contribute and can contribute to community safety. This would be along the lines as the submissions required by the Equality Commission from public bodies of Equality Schemes.

6. Sentences, Prisons and Probation

   1. While we generally agree with the recommendations in this area we would register a very strong objection to the recommendation that, on devolution of criminal justice matters, the Probation Service should be reconstituted as a Next Steps Agency. We do not believe that a sufficient case has been made in the Report to warrant such a reconstitution.

   2. In fact many important factors point to the necessity of ensuring that the Probation Service does not become a Next Step Agency and remains a non-departmental public body with its statutory commitments.

   3. Over the years and in particular since its constitution into its present form in 1982, the Probation Service has been perceived and as has been an independent organisation with ample accountability through its annual reports and business plans, etc. Working with and in the community, it has successfully gained the trust and respect of all sections of the community. In the context of a divided society in Northern Ireland this trust and respect has been hard won and is invaluable. Such trust and respect is in grave danger of being eroded if not lost if the recommendation to reconstitute the service as a Next Step Agency is accepted.

7. Victims and Witnesses

   1. We agree with the Report in its adoption of many of the recommendations in Speaking up for Justice. Under the current criminal justice system, victims are failed by often feeling left out, unimportant, and even non-existent. As such, we endorse the recommendations designed to inform victims on the progress of their cases and the release of prisoners back into the community. However, we would like to point out how under-resourced victim support schemes are, leading to a lack of adequate training and personnel. More funding must be applied to give victims the support they deserve. Victim support, as of right, should be fully funded by central government.

8. Law Reform

   1. We welcome the recommended establishment of a Law Commission for Northern Ireland which would keep under review criminal and civil law, including procedure and practice, and to make recommendations to the Government on whatever changes it considers necessary or desirable. We agree that the establishment of such a commission should not be contingent upon responsibility for criminal justice matters being devolved to the Assembly.

9. Department of Justice

   1. The Alliance Party have for a long time been advocates of the eventual devolution of criminal justice functions to a Minister in a Northern Ireland Executive through a Department of Justice. While, we do not believe that local politicians should be interfering in the operational matters of the police, we do believe that such structures should substantially enhance democratic accountability and introduce a sense of cross-community and democratic ownership of the criminal justice system.

   2. Therefore, we are pleased that the Report indicates that criminal justice functions should eventually be devolved and exercised through a Department of Justice.

   3. We also endorse the suggestion for a Criminal Justice Board to provide `joined-up' government in the realm of criminal justice.

10. Conclusion

    1. The Report is important and must be commended for its recommendations to reform the criminal justice system. Many of its suggestions are long overdue and should help foster a system that is seen as more transparent, more representative and largely independent of political pressures. The changes to the Prosecution, taking all prosecutions away from the police, the creation of a Judiciary Appointment Commission, the publishing of codes of practice and the establishment of human rights at the heart of the system all contribute to a more independent and open Criminal Justice system. We particularly endorse the approach taken on restorative justice schemes and urge that these recommendations are not watered down. Keeping this in mind, we urge the retention of the Probation Board as a non-departmental public body, ensuring this body's independence from political pressure.

    2. The recommendations should also help refine the system in making it more accessible and more understood by the general public whether or not they are ever involved with its processes. It is hoped such openness and transparency will form a model for operations throughout the government. The efforts of the Review committee must then be recognised and implemented as speedily as possible

THE ALLIANCE PARTY
September 2000

1. The Democratic Unionist Party notes that the Criminal Justice Review was established by the Northern Ireland Office, in response to provisions contained in the Belfast Agreement. We further note that the Criminal Justice Review was required to take account of the aims of the criminal justice system, one of which was to 'have the confidence of all parts of the community'. We believe that the Review Implementation Plan, along with the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, taken as a whole, will not in fact enjoy confidence within the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

2. The Party is conscious of the remarks of the Secretary of State contained in his foreword to the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan where he states 'the review has made a major contribution towards achieving the objectives of the Belfast Agreement, and the Government now intends to give practical effect to the ideas which it contains'. In light of this we are concerned that the views of those parties who do not support the Belfast Agreement will be ignored. Indeed it would appear that the Government has already commenced implementation of the Criminal Justice Review Plan regardless of any views it may obtain during the consultation period.

3. As a Party we are concerned at the length of time available for consultation on the reform proposals for the criminal justice system. Originally running until 12th December, allowing only 30 days to give a considered response to a draft bill with over 80 clauses and an implementation plan with some 150 pages is totally unsatisfactory. The extension of the period by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Des Browne until 7th January 2002 while welcome begs the question why the consultation period could not have been eight weeks duration in the first instance.

   Areas of Comment

4. The DUP wishes to make clear that where no comment is made that should not be interpreted as an acceptance of any proposals or clauses.

   Human Rights and Guiding Principles

5. The criminal justice system must be both just and efficient. The emphasis should be on the protection of the community from those who would pose a threat to it, regardless as to where the threat may originate. Often this can pit the system against the wishes of elements of the community, with individuals and groups attempting to cherry pick the law, deciding to observe those laws, which suit, and ignoring others. The criminal justice system must ignore such views and impartially administer the laws as determined by the legislature. An efficient system will ensure that criminal prosecutions are not subject to undue delay. If the voluntary sector can usefully contribute to a just and efficient justice system then their voice should be acknowledged but not given a special position within the system.

6. Judicial Independence must be upheld. The Democratic Unionist Party does not wish to see any training schemes imposed upon the Judiciary by Executive agencies. This would clearly interfere with the independence of the bench.

   Para. 3.55 Bursaries for Legal Training

7. We welcome the continuation of legal bursaries as necessary to ensure that access to the legal profession is not restricted to those of sufficient means. However restriction to forty fee only bursaries for the Institute of Professional Legal Studies is considered too limited.

   Para. 3.67 Public Information and Education Strategy

8. The party welcomes the idea of greater public awareness of the criminal justice system. In order for promotion of the system to be effective any public information strategy must be fully funded. The DUP notes the potential inclusion of Criminal Justice in the school curriculum and agrees such a move may heighten awareness amongst young people in this field.

   The Prosecution

   Para. 4.130 Investigation to Remain with the Police

9. The party believes that the separation of prosecution and investigation more clearly defines the role of the Police and other agencies within the entire system. It is important that the operational decisions regarding investigations are left with the police whilst the decision to prosecute lies with Prosecutors working to clearly defined criteria. While the Implementation Plan appears to accept that it should be the sole responsibility of the Prosecutor to formulate and determine charges we believe that the draft bill does in fact leave responsibility in this area to the Police.

   Para. 4.127 Single Independent Prosecuting Authority

10. The new Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, envisaged by the draft bill (Part 2 Clause 27) is intended to be a single, independent prosecution service responsible for undertaking all criminal prosecutions. The DUP is extremely concerned that we are about to repeat fundamental mistakes made in England and Wales, in relation to the workings of the Crown Prosecution Service, as outlined in the Glidewell Report. The Glidewell report highlighted defects in the organisation and operation of the CPS. It stated that the CPS was too centralised and bureaucratic, despite the fact that prosecution is an essentially local process; the volume of lower-level work was highly demanding on CPS resources; the CPS was, at least initially grossly understaffed; many of its staff were inadequately trained; in the relationship between the police and the CPS there was a tendency for one to blame the other for weaknesses in performance; and the most senior lawyers were expected to devote the majority of their time to management - the top 400 lawyers spent less than a third of their time on casework and advocacy. We note that para. 4.183 of the Criminal Justice Review directed attention towards the conclusions of the Glidewell Report.

11. The establishment of the PPS must be properly supported and resourced. We note that the present Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions suffers such pressure of work that, despite its legal staff having rights of audience in the magistrates' courts and Crown Court, it frequently instructs independent counsel to conduct cases in those courts. Without properly examining the lessons to be learned from England and Wales we will create problems in the role of prosecution that we previously avoided. At this time we do not believe that sufficient resources are available to deliver any of the changes identified in this area.

    Para. 4.155 Awareness of Diversion

12. The DUP notes recommendation 40 of the criminal justice implementation plan that seeks to create awareness of diversionary schemes. In relation to the prosecutorial fine we believe that if such a fine is to be adopted then the offender must always be given the option of going to court.

    Office of Attorney General

13. The DUP accepts, in principle the appointment of an Attorney General for Northern Ireland. We are not however persuaded that the First and Deputy First Minister should make such an appointment as is envisaged in the draft bill (Part 2 clause 20(2)). These and other issues are of course subject to the devolution of justice and the party will reserve its position in this area while justice remains a reserved matter.

    The Judiciary

    Para. 6.84 Merit Principle

14. We believe that merit must be the guiding principle applied to a properly qualified applicant to the Judiciary in Northern Ireland. Freedom from political interference in the appointment process or beyond is a key element upon which to base a successful judiciary.

15. We note with interest the evidence given to the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Justice Reform by the Law Society of Northern Ireland in relation to the potential the reform proposals have for politicising the legal profession. In response to questions pertaining to the danger of politicising the legal profession the Law Society replied 'we are making this point because we see that there is a potential risk. We are not in a position to say that the proposals answer our fears and concerns'. The Law Society further added 'where a department of justice is being created and where the role of the Lord Chancellor is being removed - as seems to be contemplated from the constitutional arrangements that are part of these proposals- important questions must be asked as to who makes decisions about the legal profession. Under the present constitutional arrangement, solicitors are officers of the court. For that reason when it comes to matters arising within the Law Society that require to be appealed, the supervisory function is not carried out by a politician. It is in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice; and we would want to be clear that that is going to be preserved, or indeed, enhanced and reinforced'. (Minutes of Evidence, Thursday 29^th November 2001, pages 12-13)

16. We agree with the Law Society when they express the view that 'we need to ensure that the new constitutional arrangements do not impinge on the independence of the legal profession. It is a question of preserving the independence, rather than creating it'. (Minutes of Evidence, Thursday 29^th November 2001, page 11)

17. Similarly in his evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee Prof. Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission indicated 'there is always a danger that when a member of the Government has a large say in how an agency within the criminal justice system, or the justice system itself - because the Law Commission here will have jurisdiction over civil as well as criminal matters - the doctrine of separation of powers is breached'. When asked whether the proposal for an agency like the law commission was unsatisfactory because it does or could over-politicise the criminal justice system, Prof. Dickson replied 'Yes. It would not be unfair to say that'. (Minutes of Evidence, Thursday 29^th November 2001, page 41).

18. The DUP does not wish to see the politicisation of the criminal justice system. We support the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession and are concerned that the proposals outlined in the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill will in fact lead to the politicisation of the system.

    Para. 6.102 Judicial Appointments Commission

19. The Party regards the proposed arrangements for judicial appointments as needing amended in several respects. This does not preclude the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which could operate prior to devolution of justice matters. The First and Deputy First Ministers will appoint the Commission membership under the Draft Bill (Clause 3(2)(b)). We believe a better way of ensuring widespread representation on this Commission would be to allow political nominees to fill the lay places. These places could be distributed on a similar basis to that of the Police Board. These nominees would sit alongside members representing the various branches of the legal system.

20. Clause four of the draft bill requires the Prime Minister to consult the First and Deputy First Minister before making recommendations to Her Majesty The Queen as to who should fill the posts of Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justices of Appeal. We would wish to see this procedure extended to appointments of High Court Judges. It is currently envisaged that the Appointments Commission would advise the First and Deputy First Ministers in the consultation process between the First and Deputy First Minister and the Prime Minister for appointments. However, we see no reason why a Judicial Appointments Commission could not advise the Prime Minister directly in relation to these matters.

    Para. 6.97 Cross-Community Voting

21. We note that the Implementation Plan accepts the recommendation that upon devolving of responsibility for judicial matters no vote, resolution, or Act of the Assembly should be valid unless it has cross - community support. We believe this cross - community support must be measured by means of parallel consent, i.e. a majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of unionist and nationalist designations, as stated at the point of election, present and voting.

    Para. 6.128 The Oath

22. The DUP regards recommendation 96 of the Implementation Plan as needless political interference and believes it to be another attempt to politically appease a small, vociferous minority. We would point out that we were told that the Belfast Agreement and subsequent Northern Ireland Act 1998 retained Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. We further note that neither the Implementation Plan nor the draft Bill proposes the removal of the Sovereign's role in the appointment process. Therefore we see no merit in ignoring the constitutional reality by interfering with the Oath.

    Other Issues

23. The DUP notes, with concern the number of positions that will be created under these new structures. We are of the view that in a province with a population of some 1.7 million people there is little justification for so many supervisory and administrative positions.

    Lay Involvement in Adjudication

    Para. 7.3 Jury Trials

24. While we believe in the principle of trial by jury, the DUP does not believe that the Diplock Court system can be disregarded at the present time. We strongly support measures to prevent the intimidation of jurors.

25. There has been Lay involvement in the lower courts here for well over a century. We welcome any proposals to afford training to the lay bench and recognise that this will place the administration of the criminal justice system onto a more professional footing.

26. The appointment of lay people to adjudication panels brings relevant non-legal expertise to the bench. This can only be of benefit to the system.

    The Courts

27. The DUP is unhappy with most aspects of the Review Group's recommendations in this area. We believe them to be politically motivated and of no function as far as improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system is concerned.

    Para. 8.49 Reception and Waiting Areas

28. We support the need to make court buildings more accessible for the disabled. We further support the need for better facilities such as refreshment and waiting areas.

    Para. 8.52 Simplification of Dress

29. The dress and language of lawyers who operate the criminal justice system falls outside the scope of the Review Groups' terms. The review was of the criminal law yet the recommendation to "simplify" court dress has over spill into the practice of civil law. Traditional court dress is perceived, we believe, as an integral and non-controversial part of the system. Wigs and gowns, apart from being a "trademark" of the Bar, are part of the popular image of the Court system and do more to enhance it than to alienate it from the society it serves.

    Para. 8.59 Irish Language

30. The DUP sees no reason to promote this language in the courts over languages such as French, German or Ulster-Scots. It seems sensible to use the English language in Court, as it is the only language that everyone in the Province speaks and understands. The DUP condemns those who would seek to use languages as a political tool.

    Para. 8.62 Symbols

31. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom by the democratic choice of its people. We are therefore appalled by the proposals to follow practice in other jurisdictions where sovereignty has changed hands by removing the Royal Coat of Arms from courtrooms. Removal of the Royal Coat of Arms from courtrooms would leave upwards on fifty percent of courts in Northern Ireland devoid of any Royal symbols. The Crown is the source of justice and, more importantly, justice is administered on its behalf in court. We do not believe that the Royal Coat of Arms is 'off-putting' to those within the criminal justice system but we can categorically state that its removal by Court Service personnel would cause great offence.

32. Recommendation 141 of the Implementation Plan and included within the provisions of the draft bill as clause 62 is petty, inconsistent with the reality and theory of the courts and blatantly political. One should balance the imaginary offence caused by the presence of the Royal Arms to the real offence, which would be caused by its proposed removal. As with the proposals for court dress we would point out that this was to be a review of the criminal law. Courtrooms used for civil and criminal cases will be equally affected by this recommendation if adopted.

33. The Review Group notes that 'there should be no change in the arrangements for displaying the Royal Coat of Arms on the exterior of existing courthouses' (Recommendation 141). This would, of course, leave new court complexes without any Royal symbol. It is clear that the proposed new arrangements will immediately strip the inside of courts and clause 62 of the draft bill is designed to gradually eradicate the Royal Coat of Arms from the exterior of courthouses by backdoor means. The Democratic Unionist Party rejects the proposed changes in this area as nothing more than a nationalist agenda unsupported by the Review Group's own research. We will seek the retention of the Royal Coat of Arms both inside and outside courthouses in Northern Ireland.

34. On the issue of the flying of the Union Flag we believe it should fly at Courthouses on a permanent basis. While it would be a poor second alternative we believe that the flag must at least be flown on the same designated days as presently practised at other Government buildings.

    Para. 8.63 Royal Declaration

35. We take a similar view of Recommendation 142. This is at the discretion of each Judge, is seldom uttered and need not be outlawed. We regard this recommendation as being both unnecessary and politically divisive.

36. We look forward to Her Majesty's Government reviewing its decisions in this area. The DUP notes the recent remarks of the Secretary of State during his speech in Liverpool. We trust he intends to take action to stop the 'cold house effect'.

    Restorative and Juvenile Justice

37. The DUP agrees with many of those who gave evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Justice that "community restorative justice" schemes as outlined in this review are not properly thought out. Their purpose and remit are both extremely vague and unclear.

38. In the area of Juvenile justice we remain unclear as to who will be responsible for the administration of this. Under this scheme it is uncertain as to whether the juvenile will receive a criminal record on attending a youth conference. We would caution against rushing into schemes without giving proper thought as to their practical outworking. The DUP is concerned at the apparent lack of procedures or guidance the Public Prosecution Service or the courts should follow in deciding whether to follow a restorative rather than conventional sentence.

    Victims and Witnesses

39. The DUP believes that victims are often failed by the criminal justice system. To that end we endorse principles that are designed to inform victims of the progress in their cases and of the release of prisoners back into the community. As a party we do not support the early release of prisoners. Those who commit the crime must serve the time. Again many of the recommendations for the benefit of victims will be dependent on the resources available.

    Law Reform

    Para. 14.51 Law Commission

40. In general we welcome the recommended establishment of a Law Commission. This would bring NI into line with the rest of the UK in respect of reviewing criminal and civil law, including procedure and practice, and making recommendations where necessary. The establishment of such a commission should not be contingent upon the devolving of justice matters.

    Organisation and Structure

    Para. 15.56 Devolution of Criminal Justice Functions

41. The DUP notes the proposal that a broad range of criminal justice functions should be devolved to the Assembly, and that these could be the same as are currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However we further note the response of the NIO on this matter where they state that 'A final decision to devolve these functions can only be taken at the time taking account of security and other relevant considerations.'

42. As the second largest party in Northern Ireland since June 2001 we would wish to be consulted on matters relating to the devolution of justice functions when and if the situation arises.

    Next-Step Agencies

43. The DUP is alarmed at the prospect of downgrading the role of the Probation Board and its re-establishment as a Next-Steps agency. We do not believe that a sufficient case has been made for this reconstitution or that such a proposal will be workable.

    Other Issues

44. Clearly there are a number of other issues contained within the Plan and the Draft Bill. We are actively considering these areas and will further respond to Her Majesty's Government in relation to these and subsequent matters in due course. We do however see merit in the establishment of a Criminal Justice Standing Committee at the Assembly for the purposes of reviewing various criminal justice measures and the process of the criminal justice reform.

DEMOCRATIC UNIONIST PARTY
January 2002

Some of the areas of major concern to Sinn Fein can be summarised as follows:

1. As already stated the review itself initially suffered as a result of being driven by the NIO. Even a cursory reading of the draft bill and implementation plan would show that the British government have further diluted an already weak review and have undermined some of the key proposals made in the review. This can be seen most clearly in the area of the Prosecution, Judiciary, Human Rights and Equality. All of these are at the heart of the criminal justice system and radical overhaul is required but will not happen if these legislation and implementation plans are driven forward in their current form. The original review report contained no analysis or acknowledgement of the extent of nationalist alienation from the system. There has been no serious attempt to address these concerns in the implementation plan.

2. There was no review of the past performance of any of the existing criminal justice agencies in relation to the conflict. This was further exacerbated by the fact that some of the people sitting on the review were civil servants responsible for the oversight of some of these agencies. This immediately discouraged nationalists seeking any fundamental change to the delivery of criminal justice.

3. While the Review team made no recommendation in relation to appointment of an oversight Commissioner Sinn Fein would support the proposal made by the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Human Rights Commission that such an appointment should be made. This is would be logical given the broad range of issues, the number and scope of the recommendations and the fact that it covers a broad range of agencies. An oversight commissioner was required to implement the Patten recommendations and would make sense for the criminal justice review.

4. All recommendations are left to existing agencies to implement i.e. the NIO, court service, prison service etc. All have been an integral part of the problem. A major problem has been the lack of transparency and accountability within these agencies and that seems certain to continue.

5. There are no clear targets and timetables for the implementation of these recommendations or indeed the monitoring of the implementation. Agencies are left to this if and when they see fit. There are a total of 294 recommendations. 96 are dependent on legislation for implementation; 14 are subject to devolution; 21 are subject to both legislation and devolution. Only 50 of the recommendations have stated timetables. These are fairly minor elements such as research; review of existing policies etc and many of these timetables have already slipped. The British government states that it has accepted 236 of the recommendation but closer inspection shows that they have not indeed accepted them. One pertinent example is the recommendation from the review group that the DPP should give reasons for failure to prosecute. The NIO states that it has accepted this but reading into it is clear that they have done the opposite. A further 50 recommendations have been accepted in principle only. When, if and by whom will they be implemented?

6. The draft Implementation Plan proposes to give far too many powers to the secretary of state and the British government. For instance the British Secretary of State also appoint chief officers of the criminal justice inspectorate and the members of the Law Commission. The six county Attorney General will have to consult with the Attorney General for England and Wales before appointing senior officers of the Prosecution service after devolution.

7. There are a range of issues about the human rights and equality proofing of the implementation plan. In relation to human rights training the approach is far too ad hoc given the centrality that these issues were given in the original review. The fact that very few timetables have been indicated in relation to human rights issues is a serious flaw and will delay any major change in this area. The human rights based issues should be implemented now as opposed to having to wait for devolution and/or legislation.

8. The whole area of representation of the community has been diluted to being 'reflective'. This is unacceptable. There is also no plan or strategy never mind a timetable by which to address the under representation of Catholics in particular within the system. Nothing has been said about representation from any of the other section 75 categories. For instance there is no hope given in the plan to ensure that the civil servants who are responsible for drafting legislation and overseeing the British secretary of States functions will reflect the religious and political make up of the six counties. The same criticisms apply to the recommendations around equity monitoring.

9. The recommendations around the office of the DPP are one area, which cause grave concern. While this was the area in which there was most potential for change even within the flawed remit of the review the recommendation in the draft implementation plan proposes a simple name change and nothing else. The whole area of giving of reasons for failure to prosecute has been subject to abuse in controversial cases and will continue to be so. Recruitment for the new service has already begun prior to the publication of the implementation plan. This will not serve to raise nationalist confidence any new Prosecution Service nor will it encourage nationalist to apply.

10. The judiciary are to remain exactly the same and with human rights training being optional rather than compulsory. All the recommendations around the judiciary remain subject to devolution. We are opposed to the proposal that the Lord Chief Justice chair the Commission or have the power to appoint 5 of the other 11 positions. This leaves the Commission dominated and controlled by the Lord Chief Justice. The legislation requires that the lay members must 'so far as possible' be 'reflective' of the community in the six counties rather than representative. Senior Judicial appointments will remain in the hands of the British Prime Minster and the English Queen. We are particularly dismayed that only practising lawyers will be eligible for appointment. There has been no willingness to explore the appointment of legal academics and human rights experts. The judicial oath still contains the word 'realm'. This must be removed.

11. Codes of ethics/practice are to be left to the individual agencies to develop. There is no timetable for these or any proposal to consult on them or to have them equality impact assessed.

12. Emblems and symbols. The recommendations make a mockery of the proposal to develop a neutral environment. The fact that the British Royal crest is to remain outside of courthouse (as well as inside courthouses that are listed buildings) is a complete nonsense. The same applies to continued flying of the Union Jack. This needs to be overhauled particularly when one considers that the Review also refused to make recommendations in relation to the name of the Royal Courts of Justice and the Crown Court or the term 'Queens Counsel'.

13. The proposed new oath still contains a reference to the 'realm'. This wording should be changed to insert the term 'jurisdiction'. The whole issue of the symbols and the oath promote a loyalist/unionist political opinion. This area fails to have regard to the need to promote equality.

14. The whole area of inquests and coroners courts is of particular interest to nationalists and SF made proposals for substantial transformation of both. This is in no sense reflected in the implementation plan. We believe that the proposed review is insufficient. It is based on the review of the inquest system and will not focus on the problems and inadequacies of the system as it has operated in the north. Something more fundamental was required.

15. The draft bill and implementation plan to make any recommendation about membership of exclusive or oath bound organisations being considered incompatible with employment in or holding office in the criminal Justice system. There must be a register of interests of members of the judiciary, senior counsel and the Prosecution service.

16. Restorative justice while recognised by the review has been tied to co-operation with the police. Funding will be allocated on this basis. The focus is on a court based system as opposed to a community based one. The plan links the operation of restorative justice as being based on referrals through statutory agencies. Many of these agencies do not have the confidence of the community. Problems around the issue of policing means that this is one of the most problematic areas for nationalists.

17. The all Ireland element is extremely weak and virtually ignores the reference to this in the Good Friday Agreement. There is no intention of moving towards all Ireland harmonisation in terms of legislation or institutions. At no point is there a role for 26 county legal personnel or institutions. A joint study group is wholly insufficient.

1.  
2. INTRODUCTION

   1. The British government's Criminal Justice Review was established under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The review itself fell short of what Sinn Fein had argued for.

   2. The Review team was tasked with addressing the structure, management and resourcing of publicly funded elements of the Criminal Justice System and with bringing forward proposals for future criminal justice arrangements.

   3. Unlike the Commission on Policing, the Criminal Justice Review was largely an internal review conducted by Northern Ireland Office civil servants with an independent advisory element. What this meant in reality was that British government civil servants, serving the very same criminal justice system that has already failed the democratic test of delivering a fair and impartial system of justice, were appointed to spearhead this review process.

   4. The terms of reference were fundamentally flawed from the outset, with repressive legislation and the Diplock non-jury courts being omitted from the ambit of the review.

   5. The unilateral decision by the British government that the Diplock system is to be retained bodes ill for the implementation of the review group's recommendations in relation to the proposed human rights ethos for the criminal justice system. This fear has been borne out in the draft implementation plan.

   6. The Review Group in its report acknowledged the interdependence of criminal justice, policing and emergency legislation: ' We were, however, conscious of the linkages between these three areas and that our efforts to develop proposals for a fair, rights based and effective criminal justice system which inspired the confidence of the community as a whole could not be divorced from the outcome of those separate reviews.'

   7. This was ignored by the British government and has resulted in subsequent flawed reviews, reports and legislation.

   8. The failure to create a new and radically transformed Criminal Justice System that all citizens can support and have confidence in is damaging to the democratic process of conflict resolution that is underway. All the indications to date are that NIO civil servants and politicians have further watered down the recommendations of the review. In fact there has been even further dilution of the recommendations for the transformation of the criminal justice than there was with Patten.

   9. In September 2000, Sinn Fein made its formal submission to the Review of the Criminal Justice System, highlighting our serious concerns and asking that they be addressed. It is against this original submission that we measure the proposed implementation plan and supporting legislation.

   10. In summary the draft implementation recommendations were assessed as follows:

• 96 recommendations are dependent on legislation for implementation.

• 14 are subject to devolution

• 21 subject to both legislation and devolution

• The NIO claim that 89 of the recommendations are already ongoing

• The NIO state that they have accepted 236 of the 294 recommendations made by the Review Group and that they have accepted a further 50 accepted in principle

• 8 already in place

• Only 50 of the recommendations have stated timetables, most of these have already slipped in the timeframe already and none of them are the major areas requiring change.

1. From the outset, the Criminal Justice Review, an important element of the Good Friday Agreement, was less strong than Sinn Féin had argued for. Unlike the Patten Commission, The Criminal Justice Review was a Government Review with only an independent advisory element.

2. The Criminal Justice review's terms of reference were flawed in that they excluded from their remit a review of emergency legislation and the discredited Diplock Court system. These, alongside policing, have been the political instruments used by successive British governments to perpetrate major human rights abuses in the North of Ireland. Given that these elements were outside the remit of the Review Group, the report could not be anything but fundamentally flawed.

3. This has proved to be the case since what has emerged from the review are a set of proposals to 'modernise' a system that essentially retains at its heart, the continual denial of human rights and justice. This further reflected in the draft implementation plan.

4. Only in some places did the Report demonstrate an awareness of the level of nationalist alienation while in some less publicised aspects of the report - in the 'Human Rights and Guiding Principles' section - the report indicates a minimal acknowledgement of past problems. On the other hand, the Review placed much emphasis on the need for public education. The impression given here was that nationalist alienation from the criminal justice system is more about lack of information as opposed to acknowledging that this alienation derives from actual experience of human rights violations by the system under emergency legislation, non-jury courts and a sectarian, partisan police force.