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.

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.

5. The fact that the British government announced that the conclusion of a review of the Diplock system was that it was to be retained in our view bodes ill for the implementation of the review group's recommendations and for the proposed human rights ethos for the criminal justice system. This is further underscored by the emphasis in Rec. No ? of the draft implementation plan, which stresses the intention to retain Diplock, courts. It does this without any reference to human rights implications not only under international human rights instruments but also the Human Rights Act.

6. This, coupled with the failure of the Review Group to systematically review and acknowledge the failures of the past resulted in a report that missed a unique opportunity to revolutionise the system.

7. While many of the recommendations of the review group were welcome, they are being imported into an already fatally flawed system and will fail to instil, especially to those most alienated from the system, total confidence in the criminal justice system.

8. The Review Group took as part of their terms of reference the aims outlined in the Good Friday Agreement which were to:

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

• Be responsive to the community's concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate

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

• Deliver justice efficiently and effectively"

1. The Criminal Justice system in the North is a set of institutions, laws and practices established for the maintenance of the status quo. It has been geared to perform this function in a variety of ways, an obvious one being its well-established counter-insurgency role. But it also performed the task in a more insidious way by an exclusionary process, which meant that the 'obvious' people to appoint to post were loyal unionist males. This strategy meant that if Catholics were appointed to senior posts they would have to be unionists, thus excluding nationalists and republicans while women (even unionist women) were also marginalised.

2. The process was buttressed by a set of symbols and titles (Union flag, Royal Courts of Justice etc) which served to alienate nationalists and operated as part of a broader project of unionist hegemony: the 'obvious' people to appoint in relation to policing and the senior civil service were also unionist males with an attachment to the same set of symbols.

   Good Friday Agreement

3. It was clear that in the new political dispensation that the Good Friday Agreement promised, this situation was no longer be tenable and that mild reform was insufficient.

4. Sinn Fein's position is that in order to ensure the maximum confidence of the community as a whole, the old strategies of exclusion, injustice and repression must end. We believe that a 'root and branch' transformation of the Criminal Justice system is essential where the highest standards of justice and respect for human rights are guaranteed. It is by this that we have tested the draft Implementation Plan and the accompanying legislation.

5. Sinn Féin's response also reflects on the recommended areas of change and the level of change, those responsible for driving that change and proposed targets and timetables.

6. In assessing the transformative potential of the Criminal Justice Review draft Implementation Plan and legislation therefore, we have kept three considerations to the fore:

• The capacity (or lack of it) for swift transformation of elements of the system

• The capacity (or lack of it) for putting in train structural changes, over time, to other elements of the system, and

• The importance of symbolism, particularly where an extended time-scale is in question

• Clear programmes of action with targets and timetables with built in monitoring and evaluation.

1. A final introductory point relates to the immediate context in which the Criminal Justice Review falls to be judged: that provided by the controversy surrounding the policing issue and the Patten report. Consideration needs to be given to the dangers of some of the more reactionary elements of the Criminal Justice Review Report being read across to Patten, thus diluting the transformative potential not only in relation to criminal justice, but also to policing.

1. HUMAN RIGHTS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

   1. This section of the Implementation Plan contains 16 recommendations. 12 have been accepted. Three have been accepted in principle and one has been postponed for further consideration. The document also claims that all bar one either has a timetable for commencement or is ongoing. Only one (workforce strategy) is dependent on devolution and none are contained in the draft legislation.

   2. In our original submission to the Criminal Justice Review Group under the headings of Rights and Principles Sinn Féin made a number of key recommendations. We emphasised that the delivery of justice must include:

• Equality before the law and in all the institutions of the justice system.

• A fair and impartial system of justice.

• A system which commands the support and confidence of all parts of the community - given that nationalists and republicans have had most difficulties with the system, the emphasis must be on transformation which has a chance of winning that support.

• Conform to the highest standards of human rights

• Prioritise prevention over prosecution

• Periodic review and development.

• Developing and implementing a strategy for equity monitoring the criminal justice system, as it affects categories of people, e.g. community background, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and disability (5)

• Government responsibility to provide the machinery for an effective and independent investigation of all threats made against lawyers (9)

• Training seminars to enable police officers and members of other criminal justice agencies to appreciate the important role of defence lawyers (9)

• Human rights issues to become a permanent and integral part of training programmes for all those working in criminal justice agencies, the legal professions and the relevant parts of the voluntary sector (1)

1. However we stated that under these sections there were flaws in the Review that had wide reaching implications i.e.;

• The failure to ensure that the workforce is 'representative' of the community as opposed to merely 'reflective'.

• The ongoing confusion of equality v equity. The review group should have made clear their commitment to equality and to Section 75 of the NI Act. This failure has been reflected in the Implementation Plan and draft legislation makes no mention of Section 75 obligations. The Bill must be amended in all sections to reflect this statutory obligation. We refer to the Court Service separate screening and equality impact assessment of some aspects of this review later in this chapter.

• Failure to acknowledge and address nationalist alienation from the system and the historical causes for that. This is dismissed as 'perception' and sets the tone for the rest of the report.

• Failure to address substantively the whole issue of legal aid and appears to go so far as endorsing British government recommendations contained in their consultative paper. Sinn Fein has serious concerns that some of these recommendations will have serious human rights implications i.e. the right to a fair trial and the right to legal advice of one's own choice.

• The review group fails to address the issue of the right to silence or to recommend the abolition of this blatant breach of human rights.

1. CODES OF ETHICS

   1. There are numerous references throughout the Implementation Plan for the need to put in place Codes of Ethics for the various criminal justice agencies and offices. However the major flaw is that the design and implementation of these codes is left to the separate agencies and offices i.e. DPP to put in place. None have prescribed timetables for implementation. As a minimum Sinn Fein would recommend that all Codes of Ethics should:

• All contain the aims and guiding principles of the Criminal Justice system as well the aims and objectives of the relevant agencies.

• Be subject to wide, meaningful and transparent consultation.

• Adhere to human rights standards.

• Be rigorously equality proofed.

• Human rights and equality/anti-discrimination obligations should be clearly stated alongside guidelines for good practice. It should also include a requirement to pay particular regard to making staff aware of rights and obligations under human rights and equality legislation.

• Contain a clearly stated relationship between codes of ethics and codes of practice. There should also be clearly stated criteria and circumstances for investigation/discipline and sanction.

• Set out clear ethical standards i.e.

• Professional Duty

• Confidentiality

• Fitness to carry out responsibilities.

• Integrity

• The existence of the Criminal Justice Review, emanating from the Good Friday Agreement, represents an implicit criticism of the existing judicial structures. These structures, and the personnel associated with them, are unacceptable to nationalists and republicans on the basis of their willing involvement in a distorted criminal justice system with a clear counter insurgency function and remit - including non-jury courts, the operation of supergrass trials, perverse acquittals of state actors and the judicial input into seven day detentions.

• The politicised court system in operation in the north fully represented and endorsed a British culture and ethos in relation to judicial appointments and oaths, symbols and emblems and the anachronistic nature of court proceedings. There has never been an attempt to reflect the diversity of political thinking in evidence in the north of Ireland or an attempt to generate an island-wide perspective on justice issues outside of a repressive framework.

• There has been chronic and persistent under-representation of both nationalists and women within the judicial structures in the north and the entire appointments procedure is characterised by secrecy and obscurity.

• There has never been even the semblance of an oversight or monitoring structure to which the judiciary could be held accountable.

• There has been a glaring absence of judicial focus on human rights training and the development of appropriate international safeguards.

1. Accordingly, it is the position of Sinn Fein that the draft Justice Bill must address the following areas:

• It is unreasonable to expect that those who facilitated the distortion of the criminal justice system should be allowed to remain in place in the absence of clear and demonstrable evidence of a change in attitude in relation to the framework of repressive powers available to the judiciary, and in the absence of an acknowledgement that the courts operated as an adjunct to the British state's criminalisation strategies. Future judicial figures should also be drawn from a wider pool of qualified candidates in order to eradicate the corrosive and unaccountable system of patronage currently in operation.

• There should be a strict policy of neutrality in relation to court symbols and to the ethos of the judiciary and courts. This should extend to judicial oaths, the use of titles, and the manner of address in court sittings and other matters of court protocol.

• The under-representation of nationalists and women amongst the judiciary must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The relevant areas to address also include the issues of class background, ethnic origin and political allegiance. A judicial structure should be fully representative of the society it serves and a monitoring mechanism should ensure that this occurs and is maintained within a specified time frame. The methodology of judicial appointments should be re-framed to ensure it is administered in a demonstrably transparent and fair manner.

• There is an urgent need for the creation of an oversight mechanism that enjoys the confidence of society. Accordingly, the judiciary should operate to agreed criteria developed by a representative oversight body consisting of judicial, legal, layperson and human rights based elements. Any criteria developed, including a code of practice, should contain relevant performance indicators, targets and methods of assessment.

1. Sinn Fein would argue that, once again, the opportunity of maximising the conflict resolution aspect of the review process has been missed.

2. A comparison of these (minimum) requirements against the contents of the draft Justice Bill reveals the following deficiencies (bearing in mind that the proposed clauses become operational only in the context of transferred powers):

   Clause 1: The 'guarantee of continued judicial independence' is acceptable in a context where it refers to independence whatever the political or constitutional situation in the north, but not if it relates to an assertion that judicial independence has been upheld assiduously in the past. Consideration should be given to a general affirmation in this Clause which refers to the need for the judiciary to conduct their affairs in an impartial and fair manner - Principle 2 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary would be particularly appropriate:

   The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

   Clause 2: All references throughout the Bill to 'Lord Chief Justice' should be excised. Chief Justice should be sufficient in order to denote seniority.

   Clause 3: The Judicial Appointments Commission demonstrates an imbalance in relation to the judicial membership (given the small size of the judiciary in the north and the need to develop an effective and transparent mechanism for judicial appointments). In addition, the Chief Justice has sole discretion in relation to the five judicial nominations. Clause 3(7) states that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must try to ensure that the five lay appointments are representative of the community in the north. This is an inexcusable omission that demonstrates the extent to which the judiciary is considered to be exempt from provisions that very naturally extend to the rest of the population. It is elitist and should be removed.

   Clause 4: The British monarch should not be involved in the appointment of senior judicial figures. The monarchical system is an anathema to nationalists and republicans, acting as a barrier to the advancement of suitably qualified candidates for judicial appointment on the basis of their political beliefs (evidenced at a lower level in the modifications made to the oath taken on appointment to QC and the institutionalised resistance to this from within the judiciary).

   Clause 5: The assertion that only a person recommended by the Commission can be considered for appointment is a welcome one. This demonstrates further the need for a balanced and representative Commission. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister should not (with the caveat of representativeness of the Commission) be empowered to overturn a decision of the Commission. Clause 5(6) states that appointments are to be made on the basis of merit. It is not inconsistent to allow for appointments on the basis of merit from a pool of those deemed to have reached pre-determined criteria that should be representative of society as a whole. There should be an assertion to the effect that appointments should take cognisance of the need to have a judiciary that is representative of society. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland (1998) Act must be rigorously applied.

   Clause 6: The removal of all judicial figures (including the most senior - see Clause 8) should be delegated to an oversight mechanism that applies exactly the same standards of probity as those applied to lay magistrates in Clause 12 or to lay membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission (namely conviction for a criminal offence; bankruptcy; an inability to exercise functions). The term 'misbehaviour' is vague in the extreme. Such an oversight mechanism should be independent of the judiciary and should be representative of society.

   Clause 7: The Chief Justice should be afforded the power to veto the suspension of a listed judicial figure. It is appropriate to obtain the opinion and advice of the senior judicial figure.

   Clause 9: Any code of practice that relates to complaints about judicial figures should be developed independently of the judiciary themselves (although their input and opinion would be welcomed). The independent and representative oversight mechanism referred to latterly would be the appropriate author of any such code which should be based on the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

   Clause 12: All judicial appointments should be made by an impartial Judicial Appointments Commission, including those of magistrates. The British Lord Chancellor should play no role in this.

   Clause 15: The extension of the criteria for judicial appointment to solicitors is to be welcomed. This should be further extended to include those who are similarly qualified in other jurisdictions outside of the north of Ireland (and should specifically relate to a similar criteria in the south of Ireland) and should include, as a matter of course, academics from a legal and human rights background. The legislation should be amended to reflect this.

   Clause 16: The judicial oath proposed is anachronistic. Reference should be made to fairness and impartiality and reference to `the laws and usages of this realm' should be excised. `Jurisdiction' is a more appropriate term.

3. In conclusion, Sinn Féin would broadly welcome the inclusion of a number of proposals within the draft Bill, particularly the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission - but only on the basis that it is truly representative of society in the north of Ireland in all of its constituent parts and that the appointment of judicial figures is independent of the Chief Justice. The fact that the Judicial Appointments Commissioner was recruited prior to these recommendations being accepted is an indication of continued NIO interference in what should be an independent criminal justice system.

4. Sinn Féin is also supportive of the creation of a code of practice relating to judicial complaints, on condition that there is a clearly determined independent aspect to its remit and operation. These Codes of Practice must also be subject to real and meaningful consultation as well as human rights and equality proofing.

5. The capacity to involve suitably qualified solicitors in the judicial system is another obvious improvement to the existing situation as regards appointments. This needs to be extended further to include academics and to facilitate entry of suitably qualified external candidates, particularly from the south of Ireland. All candidates must be appointed in a fair and transparent manner on the basis of agreed criteria.

6. More critically, the proposals contained within the draft Bill should not be contingent on the eventual transfer of powers to a putative justice ministry in the north of Ireland. There is an obvious and overwhelming need to generate broader confidence in the current criminal justice system as a matter of urgency. An associated matter is the need for an independently developed and assessed training regime that will re-orient the judicial structures in the north of Ireland towards a maximilist human rights culture.

7. One glaring omission is the absence of a strategy or mechanism for achieving a representative judiciary, an astonishing oversight on the part of the draft Bill. A related matter, in terms of a reflection of diverse political allegiance in Ireland, is the need for an all-Ireland judicial structure that can operationalise the sections of the Good Friday Agreement focused on the need for north-south development and convergence. In addition, there should be no role for the British monarch in relation to judicial appointments, whether symbolic or not, neither should there be language which seeks to affirm the British nature of the judicial system in a part of Ireland where the authority of the British monarch and British sovereignty is a source of dispute. Neutral language should fully reflect the need for a neutral judicial system.

1. COURTS

   1. In this section of the Implementation Plan there were 19 recommendations, 18 stated as accepted and 1 accepted in principle. Only two are dependent on legislation (flags and symbols in court houses and simplification of dress in court).

   2. The public's main contact with any criminal justice system is usually through appearing in court as a defendant, a witness or accompanying a friend or family member. It is important therefore that their experience of the system is the right one. There are some useful modernising recommendations here such as a review of the layout of courts to make them less intimidating; these are welcome in themselves. The fact that the simplification of dress and an end to the wearing of wigs as proposed by the Review Group is only accepted in principle, leaving it for the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary to decide on is not encouraging. These proposals would assist the court users to understand the system and not be intimidated by it and the fact that the NIO have decided to leave it up to existing practitioners is an evasion of the issue and a missed opportunity to make substantial change that would have an immediate impact on people coming into contact with the court system. Sinn Fein would urge strongly that this recommendation as made by the Review group be implemented in full as a matter of urgency.

   3. The need for an easily accessible, modern court environment in which citizens can interface with the legal process is a bonus that is long overdue. It is our view that the draft legislation and Implementation Plan should ensure that this is achieved.

      Symbols

   4. One of the key issues in this section concerns symbols. The Review Group recommended that the court itself should be a neutral environment. Sinn Féin acknowledged this as a positive step. We were concerned however at the refusal to create a neutral working environment outside court buildings. The NIO have also seized enthusiastically on this failure to make fundamental change and this is unfortunately reflected in the draft legislation. The royal coat of arms and the union flag will remain (61). Symbolically, this is no more acceptable outside the building than it is inside the building. To this end it would be very easy to adopt a neutral "legal type" symbol to identify a courthouse should this be the reason for it. The draft legislation allows for existing coats of arms to remain on the outside of buildings. Sinn Fein would recommend that that this clause (62) be deleted and totally reworded to state that the Royal Court of Arms must not be displayed on any courthouse whether existing or new.

   5. The use of terminology also impacts on people's perception of the court system. However this issue is not addressed in the Implementation plan or legislation. Rather than referring to barristers as Senior Counsel, the old monarchical version of Queen's Counsel will continue (recommendation 59). That change would easily have reflected a modern approach to the legal system. Just as the oath of allegiance barristers had to take, the term 'Queen's Counsel' reminds the holder of her/his position as a subject of a British system. Members of the profession should be there to apply justice and serve the interests of the public. This should be their only overarching allegiance. Sinn Fein would recommend that the issue be revisited as a matter of urgency.

   6. There is a noticeable absence of any concrete recommendation concerning Irish speakers; rather the report recommends "the use of Irish is considered in the wider context of developing policy on using Irish in public life generally" (recommendation 60). The NIO have clearly opted to put the issue of full access for Irish speakers in the legal system on the long finger. This is in direct conflict with the Good Friday Agreement where participants and specifically, the British government would "in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:

• take resolute action to promote the language;

• facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand;

• seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language

• make provision for liasing with the Irish language community representing their views to public authorities and investigating complaints; etc.," (Good Friday Agreement: Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity - Economic, Social and Cultural Issues)

1. While the implementation plan states that the Court Service ' in consultation with other government departments is considering the scope for the use of Irish in courts' there is no indication of any consultation with Irish language groups and speakers. There is no excuse for any delay in making the court service accessible through the medium of Irish and urgent movement is required on this.

2. The practice of declaring "God save the queen" will end and the inside of courts will be symbol-free (recommendation 61). This is a step forward however, as pointed out in other sections in this submission, royal symbols will remain on court exteriors. This is a clear contradiction when what is required is a neutral legal system. It is insufficient for the Implementation Plan to state: ' .it is.Court Service policy that there should be no declaration of 'God save the queen' on entry of the judiciary to the court. A notice will be issued to court staff reminding them of this policy'. If this is an already existing policy it is clear that the court service has been blatantly ignoring it for quite some time and that there is a political motivation within the service for persisting in the use of the declaration. A circular therefore is not sufficient. There must be rigorous monitoring of the implementation of this policy and sanctions brought against staff that continues to ignore it.

   Inquests

3. The whole inquest system in the north has been a controversial one and a mechanism used and abused by the British government and its agencies to perpetrate human rights abuses. It is stated in the Implementation Plan that an independent review ahs been initiated by the British Home Office and the Court Service which will review the coroner system in England, Wales and the North of Ireland. This is completely insufficient given that the coroners courts have operated in the north as part of the machinery of conflict and repression and this requires a separate much more fundamental review.

4. IN the north of Ireland official statistics show that the British army and RUC have killed 357 people whilst formally "on duty". Over 70 of these people were children. Many of these killings happened in controversial circumstances where eyewitness accounts are totally at odds with the 'official line'. In all of these deaths in suspicious circumstances less than 20 prosecutions were initiated. Of these only three secured a conviction, all of which have been overturned i.e. Private Ian Thain, Paratrooper Lee Clegg and Scots Guards Ian Fisher and Mark Wright. There have been no convictions of RUC members for the killing of any of the 53 people for which they have been responsible. There has been a complete failure of the criminal justice system to properly investigate and conduct inquiries into these deaths.

5. In the absence of prosecutions the only avenue for relatives to ascertain the truth of their loved ones death is through the inquest system. Here we encounter a system that has been stripped of any powers and is limited to merely establishing the cause and circumstances of a death. IT is not permitted to return a verdict, compel state witnesses to appear and has been subject to routine abuse of Public Interest Immunity Certificates to ensure that the relevant information cannot be made available to the Coroners Court.

6. A new inquest system is urgently required based on the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal Arbitrary and Summary Execution. Relatives for Justice have called for the scrapping of the current inquest system to be replaced with anew one incorporating the following measures:

• The Coroners Law and Rules should be brought into line with internationally recognised standards for the conduct of inquests.

• All disputed cases should be re opened and new inquests held.

• An inquest into a disputed death should always be held.

• Coroners should always sit with a jury in disputed cases.

• Inquests should be held promptly and adjournment should be kept to a minimum.

• Legal aid should be available for inquests.

• The notion of parties to an inquest should be introduced and parties should have the right to examine witnesses and challenge jurors.

• Material witnesses should be entitled to testify.

• The practice of anonymous screened witnesses must cease.

• Coroners should have the power to compel witnesses to attend and testify, subject to their being protected from self-recrimination.

• Hearsay evidence should not be admissible.

• Public Interest Immunity Certificates should be invalid in preventing disclosure of evidence to inquests.

• Juries should be entitled to bring an appropriate verdict and to apportion responsibility for disputed deaths in general terms.

• Coroners and juries should be allowed to make appropriate recommendations for the avoidance of further deaths.

• Coroners and juries should be entitled to add riders to their verdicts.

• Families of victims and their representatives should have access to all autopsy reports, documents, witness statements, and other evidence and have it in adequate time to prepare for the inquest.

1. Sinn Fein would fully endorse all these proposals and urge that these be a minimum outcome of any review of the inquest system in the north.

1. RESTORATIVE AND REPARATIVE JUSTICE

   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.

2. LAY INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION

   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:

• First remand hearings;

• Issuing warrants and summonses; and

• Continuing to sit as panellists in youth courts (50).

1. Compared with some of the proposals made to the review team about bringing justice closer to the community, these recommendations are disappointing. Rather than giving a role to lay people as assessors sitting with magistrates, for example, in courts closer to local areas where people live, the review team have made recommendations which rationalise the system and streamline it to make more judges available for criminal trials. While this is likely to have the welcome effect of speeding up cases so that justice is speedier for both victim and accused. It will not however change the nature of ordinary people's experience of the system. Once again, there are recommendations concerning the importance of criminal justice professionals making a contribution to "increasing public understanding of" the system (see recommendation 53). In other words more information and education are needed to address alienation rather than any more concrete proposals to ensure that people from nationalist and republican areas are involved in positions other than the dock.

2. It remains to be seen whether the rationale for the limited recommendations in this section is political, organisational or simply a financial concern about how much it would cost to put in place and maintain the potential numbers of lay people involved. This is an area, however, which Sinn Féin insists has a real contribution to make in transforming people's experience of criminal justice. It should also be tied in more strongly with local Restorative Justice schemes that are emerging in many areas.

1. JUVENILE JUSTICE

   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.

2. COMMUNITY SAFETY

   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.

3. SENTENCES, PRISONS AND PROBATION

   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.

4. VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

   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?

5. LAW REFORM

   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.

• Civil servants from the Ministry of Justice and criminal justice division

• Southern and 6 county judiciaries

• Prosecutorial services

• Human rights commissions, north and south

• Law Societies and Bar Councils

• Legal and criminological experts

• Human Rights and Law reform NGOs

• Voluntary sector organisations

• Trade Unions

• Community based organisations.

1. In terms of the functions of the proposed Law Reform Commission the legislation (Clause 47) must be amended to reflect the functions as recommended by the Review Group not as diluted by the NIO. The legislation also makes the work of the Law Reform Commission subject to the approval of the British Secretary of state. This is not included in the Review Groups recommendations and is a further example of British government interference in the criminal justice system and retaining excessive powers for itself and must therefore be deleted from the legislation.

2. The Law Reform Commission proposals for its programme of work was recommended to be subject to wide consultation and this must be reflected in the legislation.

1. ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE

   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'.

2. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

   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.

3. STRUCTURED CO-OPERATION

   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.

4. Conclusions

   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

   SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC AND LABOUR PARTY

1. INTRODUCTION

   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.

2. HUMAN RIGHTS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

   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.

3. AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION SERVICE

   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.

   7. The SDLP submits that the proposed Code of Practice, which would indicate the factors to be taken into account in determining whether to proceed, should be given statutory backing. Moreover, the proposal Code should apply to the police who will retain a level of discretion in cases prosecuted by way of Summons.

   8. The independent prosecuting authority should have the power to instigate investigations of allegations of crime made directly to it and it should retain powers to prompt investigation by the police.

   9. The SDLP agrees that the independent prosecution authority should have a duty to ensure that allegations of misconduct and/or criminal activity by police officers are investigated. This power should be enshrined to legislation.

   10. The SDLP urges the repeal of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, particularly the provisions relating to disclosure and defence statements. The prosecution should be under an absolute duty to disclose all material that may weaken the prosecution case or may be relevant to any possible element of the defence case.

   11. The SDLP endorses the proposal that diversion options be considered. The SDLP is continuing to consider the operation of this recommendation. The SDLP is opposed to the introduction of "Prosecutorial Fines" as the concept carries the danger of pressure, be it subtle or overt, on the "accused" to admit an offence without access to due judicial process in order to avoid more serious potential outcomes. The risk is that the prosecution may become tempted to offer this option in cases where the available evidence may be insufficient to secure a conviction under the normal process.

   12. The SDLP repeats its earlier submission that the name of the Prosecution Service be changed to "Office of the Independent Public Prosecutor", as giving recognition to the substantial change brought by the other recommendations, and as providing increased confidence in the new structures on a cross-community basis.

   13. The SDLP endorses the proposal that the independent prosecution service should be able to refer cases to the Police Ombudsman.

   14. The measures outlined to safeguard the independence of the prosecution are critical. The SDLP would wish to hear further on how this is to be achieved and when.

   15. There is a degree of concern about the representative nature in terms of community background (etc.) of various sections of the criminal justice family. This extends to the current Office of the DPP. This needs to be addressed in any future prosecution service. In this context, the recommendation to agree to publicly advertise the head and deputy head posts in the service are important. The same principle should apply to all posts.

   16. The new service should be operational at an early date, independent of a consideration of criminal justice being devolved to the NI Assembly. Appropriate training, preparation, resources should be planned at the earliest stage and no impediment as to timing and detail should arise from the recommendation to examine justice lessons from England and Wales.

4. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

   1. The SDLP accepts, in principle, the proposals for the appointment of an Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

   2. The appeal of the proposal is that the post would be independent from government, and confirm the separation of functions between the prosecution service and the wider justice agencies. It may prove productive to consider how and how quickly to give effect to this proposal.

   3. Recommendation 45 needs to be upheld.

5. THE JUDICIARY - JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION

   1. The SDLP consider that the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission (hereinafter 'JAC') is a significant step in the right direction but the Review does not go far enough. The concept of the body is a valid one and one that the Party have long advocated and therefore fully supports. However, its proposed composition and function and terms of reference are not adequate and require to be upgraded. In any case, recommendations to move to a JAC need to be implemented rapidly and not deferred to a later date due to wider criminal justice considerations.

   2. The SDLP believes that the central aim of this new appointments body must be to ensure the establishment of a Judiciary at all levels that is representative of the community in terms of religious, political, social and wider backgrounds. For many years the SDLP have asserted, that in a divided society, where there is community imbalance in an institution such as the Judiciary, steps must be taken to rectify that imbalance. This is a self-evident proposition and it is with this aim in mind that we have measured the strengths and weaknesses of the Review's proposal. It is essential that the independence of the judiciary and in particular the requirement on government to protect this concept requires to be legislated for in primary legislation. Moreover, in the event of criminal justice being "devolved" it should be a requirement in law that any action by the NI Assembly on judicial issues would be by cross-community support.

   3. The SDLP see the Review's proposed Judicial Appointments Commission as being in practice dominated by the Judiciary and in particular the High Court Bench. The party believes that, while there must of necessity be input by the Judiciary in the selection and appointment of Judges, the proposed system in practice would mean the Judiciary appointing other members of the Judiciary. Given the failures by the Lord Chancellor's Office in association with past Lord Chief Justices in the past to produce a balanced Judiciary, the SDLP believes that the proposed system does not go far enough in remedying past wrongs and the resulting present imbalance. It will introduce a degree of transparency, openness and accountability but more is required. The principles that apply to judicial appointments should be for all such appointments. The JAC should be a representative body and should be fully involved in interviews and appointments. If deemed appropriate, a sub-committee of the Commission could act, subject to the final approval of the full Committee.

   4. The SDLP propose that the JAC should not be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and the number of lay members should be at least equal to the number of legally qualified members. Their task would be to appoint a candidate, or candidates for Judicial Office, from a pool of candidates already pre-selected by a Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, made up of members of the Bench, the Law Society and the Bar together with an equal number of lay and otherwise suitably qualified members of the public. This would provide a necessary and sufficient Judicial and non Judicial public input into the process.

   5. The SDLP further believes and would propose that all NI Judicial Appointments be made under the new system, including the Lord Chief Justice and the Appeal Court Judges.

   6. All appointments up to Deputy RM should be made by the Judicial Appointment s Advisory Committee. The SDLP also advocates that there be transfers from the lower to the more senior ranks of the Judiciary and that, for particular cases, temporary appointments could be made in the High Court e.g. academic lawyers being seconded for areas involving special academic expertise. The SDLP also believes that Solicitors should be given greater encouragement and opportunity at all levels of the Judiciary and that appropriate appointments should include suitably qualified people other than legally qualified applicants.

   7. It is our firm view that Judicial Appointments Commission should be and be seen to be independent and that the involvement of the political representatives should be restricted to the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice, which should in a transferred situation, be subject to the approval of the First and Deputy First Minister.

   8. An important element in the criteria for appointment is that the Judiciary should be reflective/representative of the political and religious composition of the community. All appointments should be made fairly and on merit. However, criteria for appointment should be extended to include a commitment to equal opportunities, human rights standards, etc.

   9. The New Judicial Oath is a welcome proposal, though the use of the term "Realm" could be usefully abandoned as archaic and politically divisive. In addition, as with the proposed police oath/codes, judicial appointments should include explicit referrals to human rights standards and law. There should also be a dedicated facility and resources to ensure judges are fully trained and appraised of the human rights provisions, developments, precedents. This should include experience in other jurisdictions. There should be particular training in disability, gender, race and s.75 and the consequences of the Good Friday Agreement and future Bill of Rights.

   10. The SDLP notes the concern of the Review to achieve the objective of "Representativeness" in the community composition of the Judiciary. The SDLP does not accept that the term "representativeness" is an inappropriate term to use in this regard. What is required is an open recognition of the imbalanced nature of the present senior Judiciary and a frank and sustained attempt to remedy the community imbalance. The Party is puzzled by the decision of the Review not to follow the logic of the commitment to "representativeness" by proposing that as with religious monitoring, there would also be no political or community monitoring of the Judiciary. Surely in an institution as sensitive and as important as the Judiciary every effort should be made to achieve a community/political balance and an important method of achieving this objective is to require both religious and political/community monitoring. The SDLP find this a very curious distinction made by the Review. In addition, candidates for office should be asked about community and ethnic backgrounds and opinion.

   11. There is a need for appropriate outreach measures and that targets and timetables are established and reviewed in consultation with relevant statutory bodies.

   12. The SDLP welcomes the emphasis placed on training for the Judiciary. We believe that such training should be extensive especially in the area of Human Rights, not just the ECHR, but also other international human rights conventions.

   13. The SDLP notes the possible return of powers relating to the Administration of Justice to the devolved NI Assembly. We recognise that this is an accepted matter requiring primary legislation and that it will require cross-community approval under Section 4(5) NI Act 1998. In this regard, however, it should be noted that the party strongly disagrees that the JAC should be established only when justice functions and legislative capacity has been devolved. The JAC should be created forthwith. The developing role of the courts, not least under the Human Rights Act and rights mechanisms, necessitates early confidence in the judiciary which the JAC would help enable. Moreover, any delay in appointments under a JAC may maintain the imbalance in judicial appointments.

   14. The SDLP believes that, in the context of the North, concerns over the role of the judiciary, the Human Rights Act, the centrality of rights provisions in the new policing, justice and political order etc., it is important that a new constitutional court is established. The SDLP urges the earliest and fullest possible consultation on this matter. It is also important that the training of the judiciary takes full cognisance of the new human rights order and constitutional dispensation which is developing in Northern Ireland.

   15. To safeguard the independence of the judiciary and its real or perceived independence, measures to ensure an acceptable ethos in the court, courtrooms free of symbols and declarations, security of and tenure (subject to good practice) and disciplinary mechanisms, should be adopted.

6. RESTORATIVE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

   1. The SDLP refers to our submission to the Review which outlined principles that should govern restorative justice. The SDLP re-iterates these principles and believes that their application endures.

   2. The party accepts the four key principles in the Review that should inform restorative justice as being consistent with the SDLP 'principles' and that there are a number of wider factors (legitimacy deficit, inter communal tension, crime prevention, the existence of summary paramilitary intervention and informal community based mechanisms) which need to be considered.

   3. It is essential that illegal organisations have no role, involvement or influence in Restorative Justice schemes. Due to this real or perceived difficulty, at this stage, schemes need to fulfil key principles and be moderate in size and funding.

   4. The SDLP welcomes the proposals for prosecution driver diversion schemes for juveniles, with such schemes modelled on a "partnership" approach and developments generally of restorative justice approaches to juvenile offence. Indeed, it is noted (and anticipated) that "pre-court" diversions strategy may develop in due course and further thinking on this matter in due course may be necessary.

   5. The SDLP agrees that prosecutions should have the power to "refer back" for a police caution and that guidelines are required on good policing and practice for division at police and prosecution levels.

   6. In drawing up guidelines in (5) above on wider principles and requirements of restorative justice schemes, there should be consultation of a community, agency, political and statutory level.

   7. The SDLP supports an inter agency body (or lead agency) to develop restorative justice at a national and local level. This should work close with the Community Safety Unit and other relevant agencies.

   8. The SDLP welcomes consideration of the juvenile justice system as a distinct aspect of the system and are pleased to note the reference to appropriate international standards. We would of course like to see a stronger requirement on the justice system to adhere to such standards.

   9. The SDLP would wish to see the following elements emphasised in the juvenile justice system:

• 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.

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