1. Of the 26 recommendations in this section all are stated as accepted with 24 dependent on legislation.

2. Generally, British government has opted for a top down approach to restorative justice that is the one recommendation from the Implementation Plan that is ongoing. They have tied its development to the courts, which will "drive" the use of this form of intervention (recommendation 63). The model is the New Zealand youth conferencing model. In addition, the police and prosecutors will have access to other restorative justice schemes.

3. The Implementation Plan has narrowed the scope for community driven schemes (recommendation 168). This means that - on the face of it - schemes in loyalist areas may well be funded while those operating in republican areas may not. The NIO have refused utterly to acknowledge the problems that nationalist and republican communities have had in dealing with the RUC and these problems continue to effect policing because of the failure to fully implement Patton. In present circumstances these republican projects continue to operate on the basis of having no contact with the police and the formal criminal justice system. The implementation Plan wishes to see schemes develop which take referrals from the courts or are administered by criminal justice professionals. The approach by the NIO poses many problems and contradictions for instance in recommendation 147 there is much emphasis on the need for the re-integration of the offender back into the community. How can this be done without the full involvement and support of the community affected?

4. However, it is to be welcomed that commitment to human rights standards and regular inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate will be clear safeguards for local schemes. Sinn Féin welcomes this openness to emerging projects that are developing a formidable caseload and are clearly filling a local need. We will continue to argue vigorously for the worth of these projects.

5. The commitment to the focus being on the victim in recommendations 151-154 is very welcome.

6. Recommendation 159 allows for the establishment of youth conference and youth conference co-ordinators to be housed within a separate arm of the Department of Justice or one of its agencies. Sinn Fein would further urge that the co-ordinators should be independent of the Department of Justice so that they are seen as being totally independent and they should build strong links in local communities.

7. Nonetheless, the minimalist approach of the NIO is unfortunate as it shows how little they have really been prepared to engage with the reality of nationalist/republican alienation from the system.

1. The 14 recommendations in this section are all stated as accepted with 9 of these dependent on legislation.

2. The review group and then the NIO had an opportunity in this section to develop the role and input of the wider community in the overall legal system. The end result of this section would appear to rule out any wider involvement than already exists. The reviewers have limited lay involvement to:

1. The threads of discrimination and inequality, which corrupt the administration of justice generally in the North of Ireland, also impact on the system as it relates to children. Given their particular vulnerability they are however more likely to be adversely impacted upon by the discriminatory practices of the constituent elements of the criminal justice system as currently constituted. Comments elsewhere in this submission should be read across in respect of juveniles. Whilst immediate remedial action is required to address the denial of human rights children are suffering in the current operation of the Juvenile Justice System (e.g. the inclusion of 17 year olds in youth courts and the closure of Lisnevin) there should be an urgent, totally independent and comprehensive review of the Juvenile Justice System.

2. Sinn Féin's concerns in respect of the Juvenile Justice System are well documented.

3. As is to be expected given the unrepresentative nature of the RUC, the DPP's office, judiciary and the lay panel, Catholic boys suffer significant disadvantage within the current Criminal Justice System. In addition children with disabilities and children with special education needs are over represented as compared to the population at large in the Criminal Justice System. Young girls in need of secure accommodation are sent to Maghaberry; this is gender discrimination, in breach of S75 and Schedule 9 of the NI Act 1998 and in breach of international human rights standards. The NIO have been negligent in their duty to address this issue in the Implementation Plan. We highlighted many of these in our original submission to the Criminal Justice Review.

4. In addition to the ECHR and the ICCPR any Juvenile Justice System must be based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Delinquency 1990, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 1985 and the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990. Given the use of these international human rights standards as interpretative tools by the European Court of Human Rights, despite some being non-binding nature they should be the foundation stones of any Juvenile Justice System. Their omission from the stated aims of the Youth Justice system in the draft legislation is a flaw that must be addressed.

5. The aims of the youth justice system are a new policy being developed and as such should be subject to full consultation and an equality impact assessment under the requirements of Section 75 of the NI Act. It is of concern therefore that the aims of the youth justice system were not part of the Court Service Screening process and that it has been excluded from the recently published Equality Impact Assessment of Policies Arising From the Implementation and Recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review Group.

6. All those who are in any way involved in the Juvenile Justice System as it relates to children should be required to undergo human rights training to include the child specific international human rights standards referenced above. This includes those working in the Juvenile Justice centres, barristers, solicitors, magistrates, lay panellists, judges, any new police service and those engage in diversionary work. The recommendation in the Implementation plan for 'broad human rights awareness' is totally unsatisfactory and becomes even more so when the NIO states that it is the police who will be responsible for this awareness training. This is a nonsense that must be rectified as a matter of urgency.

7. The basis of the operation of a Juvenile Justice System should be to prevent offending and encourage diversion. Holding such young children criminally liable flies in the face of these principles and leaves the British with one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe. The age of criminal responsibility should be raised to at least 14.

8. Sinn Féin fully subscribes to the UNCRC's definition of the child as those below the age of 18. Sinn Fein therefore welcomes the inclusion of the draft legislation of the clauses bringing 17 year olds within the ambit of the youth courts.

9. Given that the Review recognised 17 year olds as children there is no logic to then exclude them from Juvenile Justice Centres and require they are sent to Young Offender Centres with 18-21 year olds. It also militates against a stated aim of preventing re-offending. According to international human rights standards for the purpose of the administration of justice, 17 year olds are children and should be treated as such. 17 year olds should along with other children appearing before the youth courts serve any determinations in juvenile justice centres. We therefore recommend that recommendation of 172 and the NIO's stated intention of continuing to refer 17 year olds to Young Offenders Centres should be deleted and reappraised. The corresponding clause in the draft bill (60; 3a) should also be removed.

10. Currently large numbers of children are being remanded to Juvenile Justice Centres in contravention of both domestic and international legislation. Except in very extreme and clearly defined circumstances children should not be remanded and then only for very short periods. Sinn Féin does not accept the recommendation for the establishment of bail hostels (176). Such establishments would be totally inappropriate for children potentially as young as 10 and clearly not in the best interests of the child. Further the NIO should be reminded that children on bail remain innocent until found guilty. Adequate resources should be directed to the establishment under the supervision of social services of very small 2/3 bed units to accommodate children on bail who have no where else to go. These units should be established throughout the North to facilitate children maintaining family contact and continuity in their education.

    Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre should be closed immediately (177)

11. Sinn Fein welcomes the decision to close Lisnevin by Autumn 2002. The ethos and practices in Lisnevin are totally inappropriate for children and - in some cases - constitute torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Under no circumstances should the ethos or current practices in Lisnevin be transferred to any other or future Juvenile Justice Centre.

12. Sinn Féin believes strongly that the future of juvenile custodial facilities lies in the establishment of a number of small 4 or 5 bed custodial units, which are locally based throughout the North. This would enable more intensive work with these vulnerable young people, facilitate the maintenance of family relationships and enable continuity of education. Further it would allow for provision to be made for female children in need of secure accommodation who are currently held in Maghaberry.

13. Sinn Féin fully accepts that diversion is a lynch pin of any Juvenile Justice System and is essential to ensure compliance with international human rights standards. Further Sinn Féin agrees that such schemes must be based on inter-agency and inter-sectoral partnerships. However any diversion schemes involving the police will not be acceptable to the nationalist or republican community. The involvement of any police service in diversion or juvenile liaison bureaux will only be acceptable when such a police service is in itself compliant with international human rights standards for law enforcement agencies. Further, Sinn Féin is deeply concerned about the police practice of cautioning children as an alternative to prosecution. This current malpractice should be independently audited and equality proofed.

14. Emergency legislation should be immediately repealed and should never be applied to children. The power to detain a 10-year-old child for 7 days can never be justified under international human rights standards. The right to silence, a right which is fundamental to any democratic justice system should be restored immediately. Children, given their particularly vulnerable status, are particularly susceptible to miscarriages of justice arising form the draconian denial of the right to silence.

15. Sinn Féin is concerned about the current lack of easy access for children in Juvenile Justice Centres (some as young as 10) to independent legal advice. This, coupled with ineffective complaints procedures, of which many children are unaware, renders children in Juvenile Justice Centres very vulnerable to abuse and to a denial of their human rights. We agree with the recommendation concerning the need for an urgent overhaul of the complaints mechanisms in Juvenile Justice Centres. Further a system should be established whereby independent legal advice is regularly made available to children within the juvenile justice either through the operation of a duty solicitor type scheme or through an agency.

16. An independent visitors scheme for Juvenile Justice Centres should be established. In addition, a totally independent dedicated Juvenile Justice Body should be established to monitor and review - on an ongoing basis - legislation, policy and practice in the Juvenile Justice System. This should include the operation - from a child's perspective - of any new police service, the probation service, the courts, the legal profession, the judiciary and those operating custodial and diversionary provisions. Membership of such a body should be recruited in an open and transparent way through public advertisement. Such a body should, as a matter of course, consult with children; especially - but not exclusively - those who have had experience of the Juvenile Justice System.

17. As we have stated already on a number of occasions the current management structures for Juvenile Justice Centres are totally unacceptable and constitute a serious conflict of interest. Further, it is the belief of Sinn Féin that recent practice by the juvenile justice board was deliberately designed to undermine St Patrick's Juvenile Justice Centre to the extent that it was no longer viable in the event of rationalisation of juvenile justice provision. Sinn Féin's full analysis in respect of this issue is contained in its submission to the Review of the Juvenile Justice Estate. The proposal to replace the Juvenile Justice Board by a Next Steps Agency may be welcome in itself so long as there are openly recruited, representative people on the new Agency.

18. Finally, it is our view that Juvenile Justice should cease immediately to be a reserved matter and should be transferred forthwith. Sinn Féin reiterates it's long standing call for the establishment of a Minister for Children. Given the ethos and the international human right standards, which should underpin any juvenile justice system i.e. preventing re-offending, diversion and the care of the child it defies logic for responsibility for juvenile justice to rest with prisons and probation. Responsibility for juvenile justice should unquestionably lie with a Minister for Children.

1. This section of the Implementation Plan made 15 recommendations, 10 of which were stated as accepted; 4 accepted in principle and 1 for further consideration (Establishing Community Safety and Policing Partnerships). 1 is subject to devolution and 1 dependent on legislation.

2. The section of the Implementation lays out the proposed aims of a community safety strategy. Yet again given that this is a new function and policy it should be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment and full consultation. This has not been mentioned. The proposed aim is also omitted from the draft legislation. This must be amended.

3. On community safety, the Review Group reflected on the Patten proposals for local police partnerships that would drive the local safety and security agenda. The Review Group made proposals to change the name and the powers of these local boards. We note that the Review Group felt that they were entitled to make proposals about the Patten report on Policing when they felt unable to make proposals on emergency law.

4. Broadly, however, the proposals endorse the idea of the Policing Commission concerning community policing and tie these into this section of their report. We particularly welcome the fact that the report accepts that there should be local capacity for raising funds for community safety as long as this is additional and not supplementary to the statutory responsibility.

5. However, it remains to be seen whether the model that emerges is actually a community partnership. It remains a problem that real community participation in such issues tends to become more and more distant the more the idea is incarnated.

6. We have witnessed during the debate on the Policing Bill that NIO Civil servants, the British Secretary of State and parliamentarians in general become very concerned the more input local people, and particularly republicans, have in relation to policing and community safety matters.

7. These proposals are interesting and welcome but will only work if community leaders who are truly representative of the community, not those handpicked by government, have a real stake in them. Attempts to ensure that ex-prisoners - who play leadership functions in the areas under discussion - are excluded from involvement are misconceived. It is in this area that the Report of the Review Group was least satisfactory. This, however, can be rectified by the NIO during an extensive consultation process. There are local projects that have acquired expertise and street credibility in these issues. Final proposals must not be exclusionary of such expertise.

8. It is strange therefore given that the NIO has stated that the proposal to establish Community Safety Partnerships needs further consideration that they are included in the draft legislation in some detail. The draft legislation gives the British secretary of state the power to devise a community safety strategy and to further change it while only having to consult the First and Deputy First Minister, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. The legislation should reflect the obligations under Section 75 of the NI Act and ensure that extensive consultation to any proposed changes are carried out.

1. There were 22 recommendations in this section, 16 of which are stated as accepted, 1 of which is subject to devolution and none dependent on legislation.

2. Broadly, there are useful recommendations here concerning roles of the Prison Service and Probation.

3. We do not accept that there is a need for electronic tagging. The Implementation Plan states that this should be kept under review by the Criminal Justice Issues Group when it is reconstituted. In our view, properly resourced community programmes and intensive offender programmes would be conducive to a more effective rehabilitation. Of course these are resource intensive however they also provide a more integrated and integrating vehicle both in terms of the community's inter-action with the criminal justice process and for the offender with her/his community.

4. Sinn Féin welcomes the recommendation that members of the prison service undergo community and cultural awareness training. Many members of our community have been through the prison system and have had first hand experience of the approach of prison warders to the republican perspective. There should be a major effort at recruiting individuals from the nationalist and republican community in order to ensure that it can no longer be the case that one community acts as jailer to the other.

5. Finally, Sinn Féin welcomes the proposal for a mechanism to adjudicate independently on release of life sentence prisoners. This accepts the recommendation we made in our submission to the Review Group. This is long overdue and reflects our finding that the Sentence Review Commission has done an excellent job in relation to releases under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

1. Of the 16 recommendations in this section of the Implementation plan, 5 were stated as accepted and the rest accepted in principle with only one (information about release of Prisoners) being dependent on legislation.

2. Sinn Féin broadly welcomed the recommendations in this section of the report concerning the need to provide information to, and support for, victims of crime. It is also important that victims are consulted about the development of the case where appropriate. It is of course important that - because victims' reactions to what has happened to them tend to vary - justice should be impartial. Victims should be allowed the opportunity to make a declaration in court before sentencing.

3. The usefulness of information and consultation, however, will depend on the effectiveness of the transformations, which come about as a result of this report and the Patten Commission process. The notion that a former RUC man calling at the house of a victim in a republican area will provide comfort and alleviate distress is disingenuous.

4. Furthermore, since the Bloomfield report we have seen during the public debate over victims that a hierarchy of victims has and is being created. On this scale, republicans are virtually invisible. Victims of state violence have been similarly overlooked. In the public mind - and the media has avidly encouraged this notion - victims of republican violence are the only ones deserving of public sympathy.

5. Given this experience, the question of support for victims overall must be approached with care and sensitivity. There should be no discrimination allowed in this area. There should, for example, be no attempt to continue the practice of the Criminal Injuries and Criminal Damage legislation that indicate that former political prisoners should not receive compensation because of their previous prison sentence. What does this say about hierarchies of victimisation?

1. 12 recommendations were made in this section all of which are stated as accepted. 6 are dependent on legislation, 2 subject to devolution and the remaining 4 dependent on both legislation and devolution.

2. While the Review Group acknowledged very general support for an independent Law Commission and recommended the establishment of such a body -whether criminal justice becomes a devolved matter or not - the group still missed an opportunity to propose a Commission that would have a transformative, as opposed to reforming, capacity.

3. Sinn Féin proposed that such a Commission should be established on an all-Ireland basis and would be tasked with an all-Ireland legal framework and plan law reform accordingly. The Review group only recommended a North of Ireland based Law Commission that would co-operate closely "with the other three jurisdictions on these islands with a view to promoting the harmonisation of aspects of criminal law and procedure, north and south".

4. In our view, this proposal as represented in the Implementation Plan does not go far enough. The recommendation on the make up of the Law Commission is also minimalist. The Implementation Plan a draft legislation recommends that a High Court Judge chair the Commission with members comprising a senior barrister, a senior solicitor, a legal academic and one lay person. We still adhere to our recommendation that the Law Reform Commission should consist of delegates from all stakeholders in the criminal justice systems i.e.

1. 14 recommendations were included in this section, 10 of which were stated as accepted, 4 accepted in principle. 5 are subject to devolution and 1 (criminal justice inspectorate) is dependent on legislation.

2. Sinn Féin made a number of recommendations for fundamental change to the organisation and structure of the criminal justice system; we recommended that an all- Ireland Ministerial body should be established to review justice provision throughout the island and that this body should be established within one year of the setting up of the Assembly Executive.

3. Sinn Féin believes that any plans to transfer powers in relation to justice issues should have clear safeguards built in to ensure that the system and its constituent parts operate fairly in relation to all parts of the community. The review group recommended that there should be devolution of criminal justice functions similar to the Scottish parliament but made no other recommendation. The Implementation Plan delays this even further and makes it subject to a number of conditions:

   ' Once the devolved institutions are working effectively, the government intend to devolve responsibility for policing and justice functions, as set out in the Belfast Agreement. We need first to take some major steps to implement the Criminal Justice Review and to make some more progress on detailed implementation of the Patten Report. A final decision to devolve these functions can only be taken at the time taking into account of security and other relevant considerations. But the governments target is to devolve policing and justice after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003'

4. This is a further example of the NIO placing preconditions and its own political intent on the Review Group recommendations.

5. We welcome the recommendation to establish a single department of justice and an inspectorate. Sinn Féin would go further and assert that civil servant appointments to a Department of Justice should ensure appropriate representation from the nationalist community.

6. Sinn Féin welcomes the recommendation to introduce time limits to ensure the speedy processing of justice and recommend that this practice be monitored closely and all results published. The publication of results should also be accompanied by a programme of action with timetables to improve this area of work.

7. The only recommendation in the implementation plan dependent on legislation is that of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. The legislation gives the British secretary of state the power to appoint a chief Inspector. This should be amended to ensure that the appointment is made after an open and transparent recruitment process. Once again the legislation fails to reflect the functions of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate as recommended by the Review Group (263). The legislation should be amended to reflect this.

8. Clause 42 should be amended to require the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice to measure his inspections and findings against the stated aims of the criminal justice system as well as internationally accepted human rights standards.

9. Clause 45 of the legislation should be amended to reflect the wording of recommendation 263 that states that the Inspectorate should 'publish its reports and make them widely and readily available.' The British Secretary of state should not have the power to exclude any parts of the report on the grounds of 'national security' or 'prejudicial to public order'.

1. In this section there were 7 recommendations 6 of which were stated as accepted and 1 accepted in principle (Information Sharing).

2. Sinn Féin believes that these are two elements crucial to the future monitoring and development of a transformed criminal justice system. We are concerned that the Review Group recommended that NISRA be the sole agency for collation of statistical information across the criminal justice system. The Implementation Plan rigidly adheres to the original recommendation and fails to take into account the independent research being done within and by local communities on a range of issues. These groups should also be consulted and involved in the collation of information and research. There is no analysis of NISRA's past practices in relation to provision and collation of research and data and this we feel is a missed opportunity. There should also be inclusion and publication of baseline indicators and an indication of both qualitative and quantitative data information required. The overall aim should be to ensure that as wide and as clear a picture of the effectiveness or otherwise of the criminal justice system emerges.

3. We would also advocate strongly that there is clear baseline data for equality monitoring and human rights monitoring.

1. The weakness of the Implementation Plan and draft legislation is made very apparent in this very important section which made 17 recommendations and only 1 of which was accepted. All the rest are stated as being accepted in principle with only 2 dependent on legislation.

2. The NIO attitude to this section of the criminal justice review fails dismally to reflect the spirit and letter of the Good Friday Agreement in relation to structured co-operation

3. The overall thrust of this section within the Implementation Plan is based on the premise of very limited co-operation on a 32 county basis.

4. We would however welcome the establishment of the proposed group of criminal justice policy makers. However our support would be dependent on the powers and the make up of such a group. We would argue that the latter should be broadly based along the lines of the representation we envisaged for the all Ireland Law reform Commission.

   Constitutional Court

5. A major flaw in the whole report is that the review group failed to make any mention of the possibility of the establishment of a Constitutional Court. This was followed through in the Implementation Plan and legislation. Sinn Féin strongly recommended the establishment of an all Ireland Constitutional Court that would progressively harmonise the two jurisdictions and prevent further fracturing of legal systems. This Court should be the Supreme Court of the 32 counties preparing during the transitional phase of relationships on this island for eventual and inevitable unity.

6. We recommended that this court should be made up of a panel of judges, human rights activists and legal academics from both jurisdictions. It should deal with rights issues and interpretations of matters relating to the Good Friday Agreement.

7. There is nothing contained in the draft legislation in relation to structured co-operation. Recommendation 292 focused on proposed co-operation between the Law Commissions on the island however in the legislation Clauses 46& 47 there is no reference made to any co-operation between the two parts of the island. The only reference that is made is in Para. 4(c) which states that in performing its duties the Law Commission ' must consult with the Law Commission of the Republic of Ireland.'

8. Overall the opportunity to further develop north/south co-operation within the criminal justice system has been missed.

1. As with the Patten Report and the ensuing debate and implementation Sinn Fein have tested this review against its ability to move us further from conflict by removing the causes of the conflict. We judged the Review recommendations on the basis that they could transform the system and inspire the confidence of all in our society. In relation to the implementation plan and legislation we would say that many of the recommendations would be useful if they were applied in Manchester or Oxford. However they fail to provide the decisive paradigm shift that will win nationalist and republican allegiance. As much as policing the criminal justice system was central to the British and unionist strategy of defeating republicanism. This they failed to do. Much more work is required before this implementation plan and accompanying legislation could be considered an opportunity to transform the criminal justice system so that nationalist and republicans could feel part of it and be treated fairly and as equals within it.

SINN FEIN
December 2001

1. The SDLP has considered the recommendations of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland. In a number of significant ways, the recommendations of the Review depart from the submission to the Review by the SDLP. However, the full and faithful implementation of the recommendations of the Review in the context of an ongoing review mechanism and other associated measures (such as the repeal of emergency legislation) can enable a criminal justice system to be constructed that is more consistent with the aims of the Good Friday Agreement.

2. It should be noted that there is a caution expressed by a wide range of opinion in relation to the commitment of the government to introduce legislation arising from the Criminal Justice Review (hereinafter "the Review"). This caution is informed by the manner in which the Patten recommendations on policing were, initially, given expression in the Police (NI) Bill. It is critical that, in relation to the Criminal Justice Review, forthcoming legislation faithfully, effectively and quickly implements the recommendations of the Review.

3. It is submitted that the current process of consultation should ensure that the objectives in paragraph (2) above are achieved. Moreover it is important that it is agreed with government how the Review is to be implemented in legislation and in other relevant forms. Accordingly, it is a requirement that draft legislation, implementation plans, timetables and such other measures giving effect to the Review respectively are shared in advance of being tabled or released.

4. It is to be further noted that the appointment, and more particularly, the subsequent work of the Oversight Commissioner in relation to policing change has created greater confidence in the process of change and in the independent verification of change. It is submitted that government should create a similar mechanism in relation to actions arising from the Review. This will create confidence in the community as to the intention of government and the validity of the initiatives arising from the Review.

5. A core principle and practice of the new political order is partnership and community. In the policing context, this translates as a requirement that community policing is the central purpose and practice of policing. So too with the criminal justice family - partnership with the community must be a central purpose and practice of the system. The SDLP is concerned that in the Review this approach is not pursued with sufficient vigour or in a way that may prove unwieldy and honourable.

1. The SDLP welcomes the emphasis placed on human rights throughout the report, and in particular, the reference to international principles. A concern, in this respect, arises from the government's exclusion of emergency legislation and the Diplock system from the terms of reference of the Review. However, given the support for the principle of jury trial elsewhere in the Review recommendations, it is submitted that this has a compelling consequence on the Diplock System and its future.

2. If Government commitments on international treaties are to have significance, there should be a presumption in favour of all binding treaties being reflected in domestic law and a requirement to give due regard to principles set out in non-binding instruments. This should be reflected in legislation and in the other mechanisms implementing the Reviews recommendations. In this regard, it is significant that the Review details the range of international treaties, their effect and relevance and it is hoped that this will be reflected in actions arising from the Review.

3. Para. 3.25 - "Human rights and dignity should be the core value of the criminal justice system in all its aspects" [not listed in summary of recommendations] and permanent and integral part of training programmes. The SDLP would urge that refresher/update courses be given to all staff on a regular basis. It is recommended that this would include training on all appropriate international standards and the future duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. Training should be developed in consultation with and approved by the Human Rights Commission.

4. Para 3.27 - Aims not to be enshrined in legislation

   It is submitted that to create certainty, statutory authority and subject to the aims being agreed, the aims should be enshrined in legislation.

5. Para. 3.28 - Criminal Justice Board aims as model for justice system

   Aims should include a reference to human rights. For example, wording might be introduced "To dispense justice fairly and efficiently in accordance with human rights principles and to promote confidence in the criminal justice system.".

   It is submitted that Aims should be set for a longer period than one year, e.g. five years would allow for consistency and clarity. The publication of shared set of principles and standards across the criminal justice system is important in creating confidence in the system.

6. Para. 3.29 - Publication of aims of criminal justice system, implementation plan and performance indicators; annual report; consultation with community.

   The SDLP welcomes public consultation on the criminal justice plan. It is accepted that there shall be a three-year plan subject to annual review. There should be an annual report on progress.

7. Para. 3.35 Post-devolution justice system primary task "reflective workforce".

   This recommendation is welcomed and would urge that the "concerted and proactive strategy" should include affirmative action and the full involvement of the Equality Commission.

8. Para. 3.38 Criminal Justice Board to be tasked with equality monitoring. Para. 3.41 Publication of monitoring.

   The SDLP welcomes the proposal to initiate equality monitoring, but would wish to see the justice system's component organisations designated under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.

9. Para. 3.44 "Registers of membership of specified exclusive organisations could be considered further by the Government, but we are not satisfied that the benefits of such an approach would be sufficient to justify the exercise, with all the practical and definitional issues that would be involved."

   It is strongly urged that the Government reconsiders this issue. There is a strong perception that there is Masonic representation among the judiciary. This perception has a negative influence on the atmosphere within the legal profession, and by extension, undermines public confidence generally. Our view is re-iterated, that membership should be publicly declared. Those involved in the administration of justice, given the sharp difference of opinion and experience that has characterised the last 30 years in particular, should and should be seen to be impartial.

10. Para. 3.45 Publication of statements of ethics for each agency.

    There should be consultation with social partners and the Human Rights Commission on such statements and that same should be agreed with the Human Rights Commission. It is also suggested that there is a united statement of ethics for the criminal justice system as a whole. Such codes should also apply to the prosecution service and judiciary. The Codes will require to have mechanisms for enforcement.

11. Para. 3.47 Membership of organisations: "If an organisation were, by its policy or actions, clearly committed to acting contrary to the law or the interests of the criminal justice system, then it would be for the criminal justice agencies to make clear that their employees were not permitted to belong to such an organisation."

    A co-ordinated approach to this issue is required and this principle should be stated in the Code of Practice for each agency.

12. Para. 3.50 Specific rights endorsed - contained in ICCPR and other international instruments

    Rights specifically endorsed by the Review should be included in the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It would be helpful to determine if government has communicated a view to the Human Rights Commission in this regard and what involvement the Human Rights Commission have in this regard.

13. Para. 3.52 Principle 1 of Basic Principles on Role of Lawyers endorsed

    This should be included in Bill of Rights.

14. Para. 3.53 Threats against lawyers

    This is a key recommendation and must be implemented fully. The comments in this regard by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers in relation to the responsibility of government is important. It is unfortunate that the Review has not made specific recommendations and it is essential that this matter is developed, beyond the role of the Police Ombudsman detailed in the Review.

15. Para. 3.55 Continuation of bursaries

    While the SDLP welcomes the recommendation that the bursary system be continued, it is pointed out that the scheme is too limited to guarantee access to the legal profession for people from all backgrounds, particularly given the absence of support for newly qualified barristers who are denied income support or housing benefit.

16. Para. 3.56 Human Rights training for lawyers

    This is a welcome recommendation. The SDLP would emphasise that training should include all treaties to which government is signatory and broader international standards. There should be regular refresher courses.

17. Para. 3.58 Legal Aid & Para. 3.60 Law Society list of experts

    We welcome acknowledgement of legal aid as human right. The proposal to compile a list of experts for use by the defence would require adequate funding to have any impact.

18. Para. 3.63 Research into PACE

    The terms and findings of such research should be considered in the context of the published aims of the system, statements of Ethics and Codes of Practice.

19. Para. 3.67 Public Information & Education

    The SDLP welcomes such initiatives and urge that they be funded appropriately to ensure meaningful implementation.

20. Para. 3.68 Consideration in curriculum review

    The SDLP notes the proposal to improve awareness of the justice system among young people. It is suggested that civics and ethics should form part of the core school curriculum.

21. Para. 3.70 Complaints mechanisms -all parts of the system should be covered.

Obviously the SDLP welcomes the recommendation that all parts of the justice system be subject to a complaints process. However the SDLP have concerns about the co-ordination of same if there are to be a number of mechanisms. The Party seeks re-assurance on this matter, for example with regard to complaints relating to prison conditions etc. It is also of concern that an "independent element" is proposed "where appropriate." If complaints mechanisms are to be taken more seriously and have public credibility, a minimum requirement is "an independent element." It is a more preferred and credible method to have an independent system.

1. It is an essential requirement of the new criminal justice order that there is an independent public prosecution service. It is both the perception and the experience of a large number of people in the community that the current prosecution processes are not fair, impartial, independent or free from external or undue influences. An independent public prosecution system is a core component in building and sustaining confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.

2. It is submitted that the proposed public prosecution system is established by new legislation. This will enable the new system to be formally and legally differentiated from the former, create a sense of a new beginning and establish an appropriate statutory basis for the Prosecution System (hereafter the PPS) upholding all appropriate principles and requirements.

3. The SDLP welcomes the recommendation that the PPS will have responsibility for determining if prosecution is to be initiated and further welcomes the proposals that the proposed PPS will have responsibility for pursuing prosecution in those matters currently the responsibility of the DPP and the police respectively. This model of prosecution is enhanced by the involvement of the prosecution (recommendations 24,25,26,29).

4. The SDLP disagrees with the recommendation that the investigative function should remain purely the responsibility of the Police.

5. The SDLP would instead urge that the new independent prosecuting authority should operate on the Scottish Procurator Fiscal system. The SDLP believes that this increased legal involvement, supervision and advice in the investigation of crime at an early stage (particularly in serious crime) will result in higher public confidence in the criminal justice system, and greater accountability, efficiency and success within that system.

6. Suitable safeguards will be required to ensure the independence of the decision to prosecute e.g.: the prosecutor involved in the investigation process should not have the sole responsibility for deciding at a later stage whether to actually prosecute.