• care, best interests & rights of the child;

• prevention and diversion;

• rehabilitation; and

• inter-agency co-operation.

This is a key area of the justice system where policy could make a real difference to the long-term future of young people coming into contact with the system. Resources invested in implementing a system based on the principles above, could result in savings for the justice system as a whole. The aims of juvenile justice should be outlined in legislation.

1. We welcome the decision not to place younger children in JJCs, but would highlight the need to ensure that the care system is resourced to cope with such children.

   We would like to have seen the review explicitly recommend that the age of criminal responsibility limit be raised to at least 14.

2. The SDLP welcomes this recommendation that 17- year-olds be brought under jurisdiction of youth court.

3. Having welcomed the previous recommendation, we do not believe that 17 year-olds should be detained with young adult offenders; it is neither in the interest of the young person and runs contrary to the spirit of the recommendation above. It is moreover not consistent with international standards.

4. Bail information and support schemes, hostel accommodation, speed of assessment, shortest possible remand.

   We welcome the review and would draw attention to the fact that additional resources will be required to ensure that wait times for young people are reduced.

5. Closure of Lisnevin

   We welcome this and it should happen as soon as possible.

6. Given our approach to the aims of the juvenile justice system in terms of a focus on the best interests of the child etc. (see above), the SDLP would prefer to see appropriate funding to allow a number of centres of juvenile custody across the North accommodating small numbers of children. This would facilitate easier family visits and the retention of links with the community, which we view as essential, not least in terms of prevention, rehabilitation and diversion. This is not to dismiss the significant cost implications but if a care-focused, supportive regime could divert children away from long-term criminal activity, clearly the savings would be considerable. We note however, recent government announcement in this regard.

7. The SDLP is disappointed that the Review did not explicitly recommend exemption for juveniles from emergency legislation.

8. Research into impact of Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 88

   We welcome the recommendation and would like to see it carried out with reference to all appropriate international standards and in close co-operation with the relevant voluntary and statutory agencies.

9. Para. 10.94 includes welcome suggestions aimed at improving the atmosphere of youth courts. We would wish to see a resource commitment to ensure that recommendation (iv) can be implemented effectively to reduce delays in cases to be heard by youth court.

10. We welcome the recommendations to review the complaints mechanism system and to provide information to young people. The SDLP would welcome an additional commitment to offer a verbal explanation on the complaints system to all detainees at juvenile justice centres.

1. COMMUNITY SAFETY

   1. The SDLP endorse the recommendation that relevant agencies should have a statutory responsibility to contribute to public safety.

   2. The involvement of all sections of the community is essential to developing a cohesive and accepted community safety strategy, based on a genuinely inclusive partnership approach. While many bring bad experience to working with others (e.g. past relationships with the police), the co-operative and inclusive approach is required. If this is the spirit and intention behind those who come to community safety strategy, then this will enable local democratic accountability structures to succeed. Such accountability structures should however be based in statute.

   3. The party continues to consider the consequences of the proposal to establish community safety and policing partnerships (CSPPS), which would incorporate the proposed responsibilities of the District Policing Partnerships. There are a number of serious core issues that this proposal raises, particularly the compelling need for effective oversight over and input into policing at a local level and if a dedicated structure is needed to ensure these functions are fulfilled. At this time, free standing DPP's are required.

   4. While the SDLP supports the proposal for a Community Safety Unit (CSU), it is important that its role and relationship is clearly defined and differentiated and that the independence of the sister Policing Board is protected.

   5. The SDLP agrees that the CSU should have a budget to fund community safety activities. It is also agreed that community safety issues should rest with OFM/DFM in the event of the transfer of responsibility.

2. LAY INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION

   The SDLP is fully committed to the principle of ownership of the administration of justice by the community it serves.

   1. The SDLP believes that it should be noted that the vast majority of the community's closest experience of the administration of criminal justice in this jurisdiction is in the Summary Courts and that this is therefore where the community should feel its ownership most.

   2. The SDLP appreciate that the community at large feels anxious if not over awed by the courtroom experience. A situation where people from the same experience, the same social class etc., as the person attending court are sitting on the bench will alleviate that problem.

   3. The SDLP further recognises that, in the modern era of legal administration, justice systems all over the world and particularly in emerging and new democracies have been attempting to incorporate an appropriate level of lay involvement in their justice systems generally and in the area of adjudication in particular.

   4. A point of importance in relation to lay involvement in the administration of justice in Ireland must not however be overlooked. There has been lay involvement in the lower courts as the Review points out for well over a century. The perceived or real partiality of lay Magistrates and Justices of the Peace has been of concern for nationalists for as long as these positions have been in existence.

   5. The SDLP would argue that the existence of extensive and ongoing training at least to the levels in existence in England and Wales for the lay bench and certainly higher than those currently in existence for JPs in this jurisdiction coupled with rigorous performance checks carried out by the Judicial Appointments Commission should allay those fears over time.

   6. The SDLP would again reiterate that representation of women, of Catholics, of nationalists, of people from ethnic minorities, of younger people and people from working class backgrounds is unbalanced to different degrees from the Court of Petty Sessions to the High Court Bench. This needs to be radically addressed in consultation with the Equality Commission etc.

   7. Obviously while these imbalances will be of interest and concern to the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Equality Commission there would be no better place to start to address these imbalances than with much greater lay involvement at the courts of first instance.

   8. The SDLP would further reiterate that the appointment of lay people to adjudication panels brings relevant non-legal expertise and experience to the bench, thus addressing some inherent imbalances and adding a new perspective to the system.

   9. When we have the opportunity to make changes we should not settle for simply addressing existing problems but also make positive advances. The SDLP feel that the Judicial Appointments Commission should be charged with reviewing the pace of change and that a timetable in relation to training of prospective "Lay Adjudicators" and their appointment to the various courts and panels.

   10. The above are the scenarios which define the SDLPs understanding of the principle of lay involvement in the adjudication and anything less than a sustained and long term funded program of training and ultimately appointments to the courts of first instance will fall short of that principle in the SDLP's view.

   11. While the SDLP is aware that there may be initial difficulties in attracting applicants of a sufficient standard and in sufficient numbers we are confident that these initial difficulties be overcome and that this may involve the Judicial Appointments Commission deciding which criteria and standards are relevant when making these types of appointment.

   12. The SDLP has no concerns about the suggestion that the current bench should engage more in community fora and be exposed to public scrutiny.

   13. In relation to jury trial the SDLP welcomes the remarks in the Review, but would again reiterate its view that all "emergency legislation" should be repealed forthwith.

   14. In the current context we would call explicitly for an end to the inherently unsound Diplock Court system.

3. PRISONS

   The SDLP believes that a further and more fundamental review of prisons and prisoner related issues should be considered. The centrality of prisoner issues in our history and the wider issue of prison policy and practice may necessitate wider consideration.

   1. We would urge the highest compliance and integration to prison policy of relevant international codes.

   2. The SDLP endorses the use of restorative justice sentences, in appropriate circumstances, than the prison option.

   3. We support the replacement of the Life Sentence Review Board and note recent developments on same.

   4. The SDLP would wish urgent attention to be addressed to the problems of holding female prisoners in Magaberry.

   5. The SDLP endorses the response of the Probation Board in relation to the independent status of the Probation Board (Appendix One). We append the Boards response on this matter and endorse same in its totality.

   6. The maximum energy and strategy should be invested in correcting imbalance of representation among prison service staff.

   7. The party endorses the view that the Board of Visitors role in adjudications should end.

   8. The SDLP welcome the recommendation on cultural awareness training and on the review of uniform requirements and urge training on human rights standards.

4. ETHOS AND CULTURE

   1. The SDLP in general terms welcomes the Review's section on Courts, including its Principles and in large part its recommendations. Where we have disagreed we have stated the reasons for our disagreement.

   2. The SDLP recognises the value of The Courts' Charter for Northern Ireland and its emphasis on improved Courthouse facilities, including improved waiting and consultation areas, more reception or information points and better access for the disabled. We look forward to its revision in the near future.

   3. However, while we support the need for better physical facilities, it is of high importance to provide an environment that is user friendly for all who must use the Courts. That includes witnesses, victims, their families and also defendants' and their families. We therefore endorse the emphasis, which the Review places on these matters, not least the need for all to hear properly and to understand what is taking place in the Courtroom.

   4. We agree with the need that police officers are less prominent as far as the running of the Courthouse facilities are concerned and believe that police officers should have no visibility, though should be available if appropriate.

   5. We also agree and have argued strongly for a politically neutral working environment for the Courts, which is reflective of the principle of parity of esteem, as endorsed in the Good Friday Agreement.

   6. We also re-iterate our view that there needs to be a fresh look at our system of Inquests with a view to altering the Coroner's Rules, to make the process a meaningful independent investigation into deaths. Given the complexities of this issue, we agree with the conclusion of the Review, which recommended an independent review into the law and practice of inquests in Northern Ireland.

   7. We also agree with the Review that further efforts should be made to provide better information and education of the public about the justice system and in particular we support the establishment of court user groups involving in particular the Judiciary at all levels.

   8. We welcome the recommendation in relation to Court Dress. In particular, we welcome the end to the wearing of wigs by Barristers, except for ceremonial occasions.

   9. We also endorse the recommendation that steps be taken to ensure the language used in criminal courts is easily understood by lay people.

   10. We regard the recommendation on the use of the Irish Language in Court proceedings namely "in the wider context of the development of policy on the use of Irish in public life generally," as inadequate. This issue needs to be more fully explored to provide concrete, substantive and immediate measures to enable the use of the Irish Language.

   11. We welcome the Review's recommendation that in order to create an environment in which all those attending can feel comfortable that the interior of Courtrooms should be free of any symbols. In addition we would seek the removal of any symbols from the exterior of existing Courthouses including the Royal Coat of Arms, which the Review specifically excluded. This is subject to any practical considerations, which would render removal difficult, or architecturally undesirable.

   12. As far as the flying of the Union Flag we are opposed to the recommendation that the Union Flag at Courthouse should continue to be in line with flag flying practice at other government buildings, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for NI. This recommendation is at odds with the attempt by the Review "create an environment in which all those attending can feel comfortable." We enclose SDLP submission to NI Assembly Ah hoc Committee on Flags (NI) Order in this regard.

   13. We welcome the observation that the declaration "God Save The Queen" on the entry of the Judiciary to the court is unnecessary and the recommendation that the practice should end. We regard the Royal Declaration as both unnecessary and politically divisive.

5.  
6. VICTIMS

   1. The Good Friday Agreement addressed the question of victims, particular in its Chapter on "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity." It recognised that "the provision of services that are supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims will [.] be a critical element .". The SDLP endorses the continuing work and developments on victim issues generally.

   2. The particular context and circumstances of the North mean that a number of people are hostile to or have little confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

   3. Therefore, and for wider reasons of victim protection, there needs to be careful thought and strong proposals on issues of victims and the justice system.

   4. The SDLP notes that the Review proposes that different agencies would have the responsibility of working with victims at different points in the criminal justice process; while the review rejects proposals for a separate office with specific responsibility for victims. The SDLP has concerns about the former proposal as victims from a certain background would be anxious at obtaining information relative to their cases, from agencies of the state from which they have been or continue to be alienated.

   5. Moreover, some agencies may view victims in the role of witnesses and this does not enable proper treatment.

   6. The SDLP believes whatever arrangements are made to cater for victims relations with the criminal justice system they should be kept under review to ensure that they are operating as intended. We agree with recommendation 240 which would place a duty on the prosecutor to ensure that the court is fully aware of the impact of the crime on the victim. However, this should not be an alternative to evidence beyond reasonable doubt as the standard which should determine criminal judgements. A similar observation applies also to recommendation 241.

7. LAW REFORM

   1. SDLP welcome the recommendations concerning the establishment, mandate and membership of an Independent Law Reform Commission for Northern Ireland (recommendations 244, 245, 246, 247, 248 and 252).

   2. As proposed, responsibility for law reform should be assumed by the Minister(s) responsible for justice matters and the proposed Department of Justice, and that the Commission should have a sufficient budget.

   3. The SDLP believes that following the appointment of a separate Attorney General for Northern Ireland, responsibility for appointing Law Reform Commission members should pass to him/her; procedures should be put in place to ensure that there is the necessary cross-community support for the members.

   4. Until an Attorney General is appointed, the Secretary of State should consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister prior to appointing the members of the Commission.

   5. We welcome the prospect of co-operation between the Law Reform Commission in both parts of Ireland, and consider that a vigorous programme of work should take account of this.

8. ORGANISATION, STRUCTURE, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

   1. We welcome 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. This will embed the political process and the intentions of the Agreement.

   2. Following devolution, it is proposed responsibility for all justice functions, except the independent prosecution service, the Law Reform Commission and judicial matters, be brought together in a single Department of Justice. The SDLP agrees that there should be a single Department but reserves on whether it should be integrated into OFM/DFM.

   3. We would wish to be consulted, in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Policing and Justice section of the Good Friday Agreement, on the timing of the new elements to be introduced under the CJR and in particular those relating to devolution, Devolution should happen only when there is satisfactory implementation of policing and criminal justice change.

   4. SDLP endorse the proposals for parliamentary oversight.

   5. A Statutory based independent Criminal Justice Inspectorate will have a crucial part to play in ensuring independent oversight of, and public confidence in, the criminal justice system. The appointment at its head of a high calibre person who will enjoy the full confidence of both communities is necessary and should be in consultation with FM/DFM.

   6. It may be necessary to consider the need for a Northern Ireland-based Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the event of devolution of criminal justice.

   7. There is a need for additional funding and staff to tackle the backlog of cases in the current CCRC.

   8. Persons applying to the Commission for a review of their convictions have experienced difficulty in obtaining information about the progress of the Commission's consideration. This should be addressed.

   9. The Forensic Agency and the State Pathology Department should be completely independent from the police and prosecution. The Forensic Science Agency should be moved at an early state to new accommodation which would not be shared with the police.

9. STRUCTURED CO-OPERATION

   1. It is understood that this has been the subject of extensive and useful consultations between the Review Group and the Government of Ireland.

   2. The role of the group of criminal justice policy makers from both jurisdictions should also extend to the identification of possible obstacles and follow-up on decisions made. Its role should be greater than advisory.

   3. SDLP would welcome consideration of the facilitation of temporary transfer of prisoners between this jurisdiction and that of the Republic, in situations such as those suggested by the Review.

   4. Recommendation 292 proposes the harmonisation of law between the four jurisdictions. This should be a matter for the respective Law Reform Commissions. However, this should become an imperative for the respective NI and RoI Commissions. It is the view of the SDLP that harmonisation would bring practical benefit to the citizens of the island, enable greater protection of citizens, the environment and the public welfare and be cost-efficient.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC AND LABOUR PARTY
June 2001

The Ulster Unionist Party again wishes to reiterate its view that the criminal justice system within Northern Ireland has on the whole served the people of Northern Ireland well for many years. We wish to pay credit to all of those men and women who have worked within the criminal justice system in an impartial and professional manner during a period of our history, which has been so particularly, troubled. We especially pay tribute to all of those men and women whether members of the Judiciary or other agencies of the criminal justice system who have been injured or tragically lost their lives during this period.

The Ulster Unionist Party along with the other participants of the Talks process has endorsed the proposals contained within the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and supports the aims as expressed within that agreement in relation to the criminal justice system. Namely that the aims of the criminal justice system are to:

• Deliver a fair and impartial system of justice to the community

• Be responsive to the communities concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate;

• Have the confidence of all parts of the community; and

• Deliver justice efficiently and effectively.

The review of the criminal justice system offered the opportunity to examine at first principals the current system against these agreed benchmarks and where necessary instigate new ways of operating in order to further improve the already high standard of service that the criminal justice system delivers to the people of Northern Ireland.

The Ulster Unionist Party does regard the context of any examination of the legal system as important and wishes to again express our view that whilst Northern Ireland operates as a separate Jurisdiction it does so within the context of the whole of the United Kingdoms legal system. Many of our laws and practises are largely the same as England and Wales and we believe that we benefit strongly from being part of a larger whole. It is the view therefore of the Ulster Unionist Party that any changes which are proposed should maintain a significant degree of parity with the rest of the United Kingdoms legal system.

The Ulster Unionist Party views as one of the key objectives of the review of criminal justice the early devolution of Criminal Justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly and executive. We warmly welcome the Government's commitment to devolve policing and justice functions after the Assembly elections in 2003 and consequently urge the government to keep to its timetable for devolution.

In responding to the implementation plan and draft Justice Bill published by the government we will attempt to offer an analysis and opinion from the perspective of the Ulster Unionist Party. For ease of access they will be grouped under the headings used in the implementation plan. Where no comment is made in relation to some of the recommendations the Ulster Unionist party reserves its position on those issues. The Ulster Unionist Party working group on Criminal Justice will also be submitting further comments and this document should be read in conjunction with those further comments.

1. It is important that in consideration of any system of criminal justice that there is widespread support for and acceptance of its underlying values and objectives, this is essential if any such system is to retain the confidence of all parts of the community.

2. Therefore the Ulster Unionist Party supports the government's intention to allow the requisite public authorities to develop a strategy for delivering this awareness of human rights issues.

1. The Ulster Unionist Party continues to support the creation of a single independent prosecution service.

2. The Ulster Unionist Party reiterates its view that recommendation 66 of the governments Implementation plan should be carefully considered. The mistakes made in England and Wales in transferring prosecutions to the Crown Prosecution service and highlighted in the Glidewell report should not be made in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the structural organisation and staffing of the Public Prosecution service be sufficiently devolved to prevent the development of an over centralised bureaucracy.

3. We note recommendations 37 and 39 that seek to expand the prosecution services ability to deal with offences through mechanisms other than formal court proceedings. In particular the introduction of a system of prosecutorial fines would be welcomed. The Ulster Unionist Party would restate its concern that in considering any form of prosecutorial diversion the defendant should be properly and independently advised prior to any admission of guilt.

1. The central principle in all appointments to the Judiciary should remain the merit principle. The independence of the Judiciary should also be strongly defended and we would support the expression of judicial independence contained in the Draft Bill.

2. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the development of greater transparency in the appointment of members of the judiciary.

3. We strongly object to the change being proposed at recommendation 96 that a new Judicial oath be substituted removing the reference to Her majesty the Queen. The Ulster Unionist party restates our view that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and as such the position of the Monarch as head of state should be expressly recognised in the judicial oath of office.

1. The Ulster Unionist Party is generally supportive of the concept of attempting to ensure that procedure and ways of working do not create barriers and also recognises that certain symbols can cause difficulties within the nationalist community in particular. However we would express objection to the concept of simply removing all symbols on the basis that to do so would have a severely deleterious effect upon the confidence of the unionist community in the criminal justice system. The present symbols of the criminal justice system, namely the Royal Coat of Arms, to a large extent reflect the historical and constitutional linkage of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and to simply remove all symbols from the criminal justice system would appear as a direct attack upon that very linkage which is so important to the identity of the unionist community. For this reason the Ulster Unionist Party strongly opposes clause 62 of the Justice Bill as currently drafted. We therefore reject recommendation 141 and would be of the view that that Royal Coat of Arms should be retained in all courtrooms.

2. The flying of the Union Flag should also continue on designated flag days at all courthouses in line with current regulations and we would also particularly note the comments of Mr Justice Kerr in the case of In Re Murphy "by thus conferring days on which the (union) flag is to appear, the Secretary of State (Mr Mandelson) sought to link the correct balance between Northern Irelands constitutional position, and . not giving offence to those who oppose it, that approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for 'partnership, equality, and mutual respect and fulfils the governments undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland 'should be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in diversity of their identities and traditions'... I do not consider therefore, that the Flags regulations have been shown to be in conflict with the Belfast Agreement.'

1. We would draw a distinction between serious or organised crime and minor or petty offences. We would recognise that with regard to serious or particularly organised crime the Police are in the front line and can most effectively combat this form of crime. With regard however to forms of minor crime the community has a role to play. It is this sort of minor petty crime that afflicts the vast majority of society and this is the area through which the majority of people are likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system.

2. The issue of restorative justice is another area that currently causes a degree of concern to the Ulster Unionist Party. Restorative justice has been shown in many other jurisdictions to have a positive effect especially with regard to juvenile offenders and the evidence from such jurisdictions as New Zealand is persuasive as to the benefits of the restorative justice concept. There is a great deal to be said for making offenders face up to the consequence of their offending behaviour and the hurt that they have caused to their victims. The difficulty within this jurisdiction is that in many areas restorative justice programs can be hijacked or controlled at the outset by members of paramilitary organisations and in practice become simply fronts for the kind of vigilante style justice that is meted out by the paramilitaries on a nightly basis.

3. For the above reasons the Ulster Unionist party is broadly supportive of the concepts involved in restorative justice but we would in particular draw attention to recommendation 144 and 146. Any development of a restorative justice scheme should be carefully controlled and monitored as well as being wholly integrated into the Juvenile justice system. It is also essential that appropriate safeguards be introduced to protect the rights of the victim and the defendant.

4. The Ulster Unionist party would be very concerned about recommendation 168, which involves community restorative justice schemes. In particular we agree with the recommendation that, they should only receive referrals from a statutory agency, laid down by government; they should be subject to regular inspection by the criminal justice Inspectorate; and should have no role in determining guilt or innocence. We would be strongly of the view that any such community restorative justice schemes must be tightly regulated and the guidelines for such schemes should be available for public consultation at the earliest opportunity.

1. In due course the Ulster Unionist Party would envisage the transfer of justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We would welcome such a transfer and believe that a reasonably early transfer of functions should be an objective in order to put in place strengthened lines of local accountability for the operation of the criminal justice system. We therefore welcome recommendation 256 which states 'after the next Assembly election in 2003' as a target for devolution. We would however strongly support an early assessment of the necessary administrative structures within the Assembly and executive to facilitate this transfer at the earliest opportunity after the Assembly elections in 2003.

2. The Ulster Unionist Party strongly supports the extension of recommendation 263 and the amendment of the Draft Justice Bill to include the Police Ombudsman in the list of bodies subject to inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. We believe that this would go a long way towards securing the reputation of the office of the Police Ombudsman and should in no way detract from the operational independence of the Police Ombudsman's office.

1. The Ulster Unionist Party supports sensible co-operation between the two Jurisdictions on this island where it has positive benefits for both jurisdictions.

2. The Ulster Unionist Party notes the intention to create a working group under the auspices of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. We would however restate our view that the existing arrangements in the North-South Council and more importantly the British Isles Council should be utilised. We would also be strongly of the view that no moves to extend North-South cooperation should be made without consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Belfast Agreement has already defined the areas of North-South co-operation in Strand 2. We would further state that any as required by Strand 2 paragraph 12 of the Belfast Agreement any further development of North-South arrangements should be subject to agreement by the Assembly and Oireachtas. We believe any attempt to introduce new areas of structured North-South cooperation would be in breach of the terms of the Belfast Agreement.

top

1. The timescale for consultation is too short to allow for detailed responses to be prepared. It is not reasonable to expect that the findings of the Criminal Justice Review have simply been placed into legislation as we have found deviation in significant places.

2. There has been no consultation with children and young people on the Draft Justice (NI) Bill. In our view this is in breach of the requirements under Section 75 Northern Ireland Act 1998. We recommend that a young person's summary of the implications of the Bill should be prepared and that workshops with children and young people are organised to facilitate discussion.

3. There should be representation from the voluntary sector on the criminal issues group recommended (Recommendation 130).

   Lay Magistrates

4. Article 12; We would suggest that Article 12b) is deleted as we would recommend that all lay magistrates should have completed training before being appointed, including mandatory training on the United Nations Convention On The Rights of The Child, other relevant international human rights instruments and children's rights under The ECHR as incorporated by The Human Rights Act 1998.

5. The appointment of Lay Magistrates should be public and transparent. We agree with Recommendation 119 of The Implementation Plan in relation to the selection procedure and making criteria for selection publicly available.

6. All lay magistrates and magistrates/judges dealing with children's cases should be vetted and checked through the PECS system. This should be a statutory requirement. The proposals for a Protection Of Children Act currently being circulated will not, as currently drafted make such checks mandatory.

   Implications Of T& V v UK

7. The Practice Direction issued by The Lord Chief Justice should be modified to apply to all proceedings in the Youth Court. Any new legislation about the Youth Justice system should enshrine the principles of participation and understanding, as these are central to every child's right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 ECHR as incorporated. We have suggested amendments to The Justice (NI) Bill to ensure that these rights are incorporated. (See section on Participation and understanding)

8. Crown Court trials of young people could be carried out in the Youth Court in all but the most serious cases and the Crown Court Judge could be accompanied by two lay magistrates.

   Youth Justice

   Section 49 Aims of Youth Justice System

9. This sections appears in it's principal aim to directly contradict the recommendation of the Criminal Justice Review as described in recommendation 169 and elaborated upon in paragraph 10.65 of the full report.

10. The report and recommendation mention international standards of children's rights with the former clearly stating the belief that the aim of a juvenile justice system should be "the prevention of offending" paying particular regard to the provisions of the UN Guidelines for the Preventions of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines) and the UNCRC. These are as follows:

    The Riyadh Guidelines state that: The prevention of juvenile delinquency is an essential part of crime prevention in society."

    The UNCRC states: "States parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth which re-enforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and desirability or promoting the child's re-integration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society."

    Also

    The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 also states that the aim of the youth justice system in England and Wales should be to "prevent offending by children and young persons."

11. The above are contrary to the principal aim as stated in the draft legislation. The right of the public to expect protection form offending should be a key outcome of any effective youth justice system but should not, we would argue, be the principle aim. We also agree that the public would believe that they should be protected but disagree that public opinion can be allowed to direct legislation on such an emotive subject. There is clear evidence that "public opinion" as expressed through popular media is extremely punitive on the way young people who offend should be treated by the courts and others. We appreciate that public perception of the youth justice system is important and believe that the full implementation of recommendation 191 (development of communication strategy) is vital in this area and will go a long way to assisting the public to understand the purpose of the way that the youth justice system operates.

12. We recognise that subsequent sections in the draft legislation expand on other aims which we are more comfortable with. However we feel that they may be lost by the stated principal aim, which has little regard to the child. This places this legislation in conflict with the Children Order, 1995 which recognises paramountcy of the child's welfare. In view of the evidence that these young people who offend are often the most vulnerable in our community we cannot accept a position where they are treated differently from other vulnerable and challenging children. These young people must appreciate the consequences on others and themselves if re-offending is to be prevented and this can only be achieved within an intervention which addresses the child's needs.

13. Therefore we believe that the principal aim of the youth justice system should be amended as follows:

    "to prevent offending having taken into account the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration"

14. In our submission to The Criminal Justice Review we set out 38 Guiding Principles for the juvenile justice system. The Criminal Justice Review recommended that a statement of aims and principles should be reflected and incorporated in legislation. It was recommended that this should include a statement about the best interests of the child as a primary consideration and about the prevention of offending/diversion and rehabilitation. In our view this has not been done.

15. We would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this with The Northern Ireland Office and have enclosed copies of our original submissions to The Criminal Justice Review, which may be of assistance in redrafting this clause. Section 2 deals specifically with Guiding Principles, Values and Objectives grounded in internationally accepted children's rights standards.

16. We would also recommend that the same phrases are used throughout the system be it a "juvenile justice" (Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order, 1998) one or a "youth justice" system.