Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003

[back to previous text]

Mr. Mates rose—

Mr. Browne: Before I invite the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and then the hon. Gentleman to intervene, let me explain what we did.

The proposal for the draft order was laid before Parliament on 19 December and published for wider consultation in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it was copied to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly—although I recognise that that was of limited value, since the Assembly was not sitting—to all Members of the Assembly, and to all Northern Ireland political parties. According to my list, the order was also copied to the hon. Member for East Hampshire, who is the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

I made clear in Committee on 29 October how we would proceed. In the light of that, had it been thought necessary to make representations to the effect that the issues merited a debate in the House, the time of the order's publication would have been when to make

Column Number: 007

them, but no such representations were made. No such representations were made during the consultation period and no great controversy was generated by the consultation process. Some 22 responses were received, all broadly supportive of the proposed changes. I shall refer to the amendments that were made as a result of those responses. However, no responses were submitted by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Taylor rose—

Mr. Browne: I will give way first to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, delayed though it is, because my point is still relevant.

I want to respond to his comment that criminal justice matters are traditionally dealt with by Orders in Council. Having had the great privilege of sitting through some 32 sittings of the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill, I recall that on 16 January 2003, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) said:

    ''I confirm . . . that Northern Ireland Ministers intend that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland . . . In fact, we intend to do so in the Bill, and will table amendments on Report to that effect.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 January 2003; c. 390.]

The Criminal Justice Bill deals with two very substantive matters that we are considering this afternoon—bail and live television link-ups—but it seemed to me in January that bail and live television link-ups would be dealt with in a Bill, not in an order.

Mr. Browne: I cannot be responsible for what seemed to be apparent to the hon. Lady. Clearly, the circumstances are different where proposals for changes in the law emanate from work done by the Home Office, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Office, and there is agreement that it would be appropriate to try to persuade Parliament to apply those changes to Northern Ireland. I shall go through the history of how the changes came about.

Mr. Mates: Obviously I welcome greatly the fact that the Minister will open the Sexual Offences Bill to wider consultation, but why then is he seeking under this order to preserve something that the Sexual Offences Bill will get rid of—the provision relating to recklessness in article 18(1)(b)? That puts the legislation out of line, gratuitously, and is the sort of the thing that we could have done something about had our debate allowed for amendments to be made.

Mr. Browne: Although we know that the status quo is out of kilter with the Sexual Offences Bill, we are seeking overtly to maintain the status quo, pending wide-ranging consultation in Northern Ireland on fundamental changes to the law on sexual offences. There will be a review, and when it is concluded, there will be consultation.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister has heard me and remained unconvinced. In a gentlemanly spirit, I say that I have heard him and remain unconvinced. I do not think that I can make further progress, but I

Column Number: 008

should just like to clarify that my objection is not to whether this debate takes place in Committee or on the Floor of the House, but that matters of such moment are being dealt with by a simple yes or no vote, without any opportunity to amend the provisions.

Mr. Browne: I do not think that that last contribution, for which I am grateful, requires any response.

I shall move on to the detail of the order, including that relating to sexual offences—

The Chairman: Order. In response to the point of order initially raised by the hon. Member for Solihull, I have made known the views of the Chair. It is entirely up to the Committee whether it wants to discuss procedure or get down to the content of the order.

Mr. Browne: I certainly want to get down to the content of the order.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): The Minister said that when the order was presented to the House, no major objections to it were made by the parties represented here. He will recall that we have raised repeatedly the problem that the sheer intensity of the flow of legislation makes it difficult to provide appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I do not expect the Minister to respond as he has already covered the point. However, rhetorically I say that the Government are reaping what they have sown by trying to squash so much legislation into such a short time.

Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but in a sense we were all pleased that the field that we were harvesting was there. My understanding was that all parties agreed with the Government's approach on suspension and that we should seek to complete the legislation that was before the Assembly before the planned date for the elections in Northern Ireland. I clearly recall that there was support from all parties for that when the Government embarked on the process. We realised that it would be a difficult period: it is behind us now. These are matters that would have come before the Committee in any event because they are reserved matters. They would not have been dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is undergoing significant change as a result of the review of criminal justice and the consequential reforms contained in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Both the administrative and statutory measures being put in place now represent fundamental changes to major institutions and procedures within the criminal justice system. Notwithstanding the fact that fundamental change is under way, some elementary but important changes to the criminal law and procedures still have to be made. The proposals in this draft order represent such measures, all of which are designed to improve aspects of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. They are not major reforms, but nevertheless they are important, practical adjustments, which are designed to improve efficiency, effectiveness, fairness and service delivery.

Column Number: 009

The proposals have their origins in various sources, most notably in the cross-cutting review of the criminal justice system initiated in 1997 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, as part of the comprehensive spending review. The review made 18 proposals for reducing delay and improving service delivery in the criminal justice system. Most of those have been taken forward without the need for legislative change. The remainder serve as a basis for some of the changes that we are looking at today.

The order is therefore a portmanteau of provisions, which will individually and collectively improve the workings of the criminal justice system. The proposals touch on arrangements for bail, time limits for the initial stages of criminal proceedings, the law on sexual offences, public order and a range of minor issues. The benefits of the changes should be felt across the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system and will help not only the many who come into direct contact with it, such as victims, but the wider community. For example, putting in place better bail arrangements should lead to less offending while on bail and the higher maximum penalty for the offence of riotous behaviour should be a greater deterrent to those who blight the lives of many by engaging in this destructive behaviour.

Although the proposal for the new legislation was published last December, and laid before the House, it represents some measures that have been in the making for some time, and others with more recent origin. As hon. Members may realise, the order is being made under the Northern Ireland Act 2000, which does not require consultation on the proposal. However, it remains a part of this Government's objective for good government in Northern Ireland that all proposals for legislation on matters reserved, for the time being, to this Parliament should be made available for public consideration. In consequence, we published the proposal for a draft order in December 2002. It has therefore been the subject of consultation for some three months and some hon. Members today will be familiar with what is being proposed. Nevertheless, I will take the opportunity to describe briefly the contents of the proposals that were consulted on.

The original proposal addressed three principal areas: bail, time limits for the initial stages of criminal proceedings and sexual offences. They also included a number of minor miscellaneous provisions. A further proposal was added during the consultation period dealing with public order offences. I will deal with the issues in that order.

First, on bail, part II of the draft order, as consulted on, made improvements to existing bail arrangements. The changes are necessary to ensure that bail continues to serve its purpose, which is to allow people who are accused but not convicted of offences to be free of custody, while ensuring that they turn up for their trial, do not commit further offences and do not interfere with witnesses. There is a concern that some individuals who are released on bail, or who stand surety for those released, do not take their responsibility sufficiently seriously. The proposals

Column Number: 010

largely mirror the law in England and Wales and therefore bring certain aspects of Northern Ireland's bail processes into line with those in England and Wales, simplifying and strengthening arrangements in relation to the setting of bail in criminal proceedings.

Article 5, which links with article 4, creates a new offence of absconding on bail, and article 6 allows the arrest without warrant of persons who have broken the conditions of bail and who are unlikely to surrender to custody. Articles 4 and 5 are equivalent to sections 3 and 6 of the Bail Act 1976, and article 6 is equivalent to section 7 of that Act.

During consultation, the police service pointed out that the provisions in article 6(3), giving a constable the power to arrest for breaches of bail, related only to circumstances in which the person released on bail was under a duty to surrender into custody of a court, not where there was a duty to surrender to police custody. That was an obvious lacuna, which is rectified in the draft order by the extension of the power of arrest to circumstances in which there is a duty to surrender to the police. Taken together, the two changes will allow the police to deal directly and, more important, immediately with those problems, rather than waiting for a further court process.

In particular, the order will allow the police to deal with a person before he has actually failed to surrender or has broken conditions; it has a significant preventative element. It will also allow the police to attach conditions to the granting of police bail, which they cannot currently do; only a court can do that. While that may be satisfactory in many cases, in others the police may wish to set conditions to avoid the risk of further offending whereas, under present law, even if the person is willing to accept the conditions, all concerned must wait until the case can be taken to court. A simple but important example is a domestic violence situation. A person could be released on bail with the condition that he or she does not return to the matrimonial home.

Article 24 of the order, which is the equivalent of section 120 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, deals with the forfeiture of recognisances. Those are arrangements concerning sums of money that are pledged to ensure that a person appears in court, or that conditions are kept. Previously, there was discretion as to whether such sums could be forfeited. The new provisions remove the court's discretion as to whether to order the forfeiture, although discretion remains as to the amount to be forfeited. The aim is to ensure that those who enter into such arrangements take them seriously. That will provide a greater incentive for them to monitor the behaviour of a person given bail and to inform the police if conditions are likely to be breached.

No other amendments on bail have been proposed to the original draft order. Although the Police Service of Northern Ireland suggested a number of additional changes, similar to those proposed for England and Wales in the Criminal Justice Bill, those are being considered for inclusion in a separate order, which will make amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

Column Number: 011

I turn to time limits. One of the Government's priorities is to reduce the amount of time that it takes for cases to pass through the formal criminal justice system. Legislation allowing time limits to be set by regulation has been in place in England and Wales since 1985, and regulations were made under that legislation in 1987. In Northern Ireland, there has been a collective drive to reduce the overall time taken for cases to be heard, and administrative targets for the most difficult cases have been introduced. While that process has ensured a focus on the issues causing delay, the administrative targets, which currently relate to fewer than half the cases dealt with on indictment, have not led to a reduction in the time being taken. The Secretary of State already has powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to make regulations limiting the time taken in scheduled cases. The Government consider that it is appropriate to legislate to enable time limits to be established in other cases. Article 12 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing time limits for the prosecution to complete the preliminary stages of criminal proceedings, during which time the accused may be held in custody.

During consultation, the Police Service of Northern Ireland expressed the belief that it would be premature to introduce time limits in circumstances in which the Northern Ireland criminal justice system was undergoing substantial re-engineering. In support, the PSNI points out that an accused person already has protection under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The release of such a person as the result of an arbitrary time limit might impact on the right to life of other people and would be problematic for victims. However, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Prison Reform Trust welcomed the proposed changes.

It was pointed out to us that article 14 provides for a right of appeal against the decision of a magistrates court to extend a time limit, but not against that of a Crown court. We considered that an appeal against the decision of a Crown court should be available, and to the prosecution as well as the defence. That has been included in the order. The effect of those proposals is the same as that of sections 22, 22A and 22B of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The Government are aware that an important balance needs to be struck between the timely disposal of cases and the need to allow both prosecution and defence adequate time to develop their cases in the interests of justice. We are also aware of the potential risks if people held in custody awaiting trial are released. As a result, there are no immediate plans to introduce time limits, and I emphasise that the Government are committed to consulting further about the precise nature and scope of any time limits before any such regulations are made.

The Government want to make changes to the law on sexual offences, mainly to reflect changes made some time ago in England and Wales, primarily

Column Number: 012

through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 1 April 2003