21. Letter from The Rt Hon the Lord
Goldsmith QC, Attorney General to Sir Patrick Cormack MP, Chairman
of the Committee
I am grateful to you and the Committee for the
opportunity to meet informally with you on Tuesday last and I
hope the Committee found it useful too. As I said then, the importance
of what we are doing in Northern Ireland in setting up the Public
Prosecution Service cannot be over-estimated. It is also vitally
important for the work of the PPS to be better understood by the
people of Northern Ireland. Only in that way can confidence in
the prosecution, and criminal justice system generally, be maintained
and built upon. I very much welcome, therefore, the interest shown
by the Committee.
I promised to write with further information
on some of the issues that arose. First, I mentioned my role in
referring sentences I consider to be unduly lenient. The Criminal
Justice Act 1988 gives me, as Attorney General for Northern Ireland,
the power to seek leave to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal
for reconsideration if it is, in my view, unduly lenient. Whilst
this is an extremely important and useful power, it is not a prosecution
right of appeal, in the way that a defendant may appeal a sentence
imposed on him. An unduly lenient sentence is one that falls outside
the range of sentence that a judge, having regard to all proper
factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. A degree of discretion
in applying sentencing guidelines is an important judicial responsibility.
My power of review is not intended to limit the exercise of discretion
to impose the sentence that fits the crime, rather it catches
those sentences where the judge has failed to apply his discretion
within the correct range. A case I have referred gives the opportunity
to the Court of Appeal to give guidance to lower courts.
I enclose transcripts from three such cases
that may be of interest. The first is a case involving a robbery—Zoe
Pearson. It is clear from the judgment that the Court of Appeal
applied the correct current guidelines and adopted the guidance
given by the Sentencing Advisory Panel in London. There is no
significant difference, therefore, between the guidance applicable
in Northern Ireland and that in England and Wales. The case also
indicates the point I made at the meeting that although the Court
of Appeal will usually express what the correct sentence should
have been, it does not for a number of reasons, apply that sentence
in the case before it.
I was also asked whether my power to refer could
be used to ensure commensurate sentences in organised crime cases.
I will always consider any case drawn to my attention and will
refer it if I think it unduly lenient. Whether I have the power
to refer the sentence in any particular case depends on the nature
of the charges for which the sentence is imposed but I have, in
recent years, referred cases involving serious fraud and the importation
of drugs. In 2004 I referred a case of blackmail in a case called
Potts. This is the second judgment I enclose. The use of blackmail
by paramilitaries is a substantial problem for the construction
industry in particular in Northern Ireland, although other businesses
are affected. Unless money is paid to the paramilitaries, damage
is done to the shop, premises or site, workers are threatened
or otherwise discouraged from attending the business and work
or progress becomes impossible. Historically, too many businesses
see this as an unavoidable evil. It is particularly difficult
to get witnesses to go to the police because of the threat of
reprisal. You will see from the judgment that the Court of Appeal
took account of these factors to bring a particular Northern Ireland
perspective to the guidance.
The third judgment is the case of Robinson and
others. These were, in fact, five cases involving death or serious
injury caused by dangerous or drunken driving. There was a growing
public concern that this sort of offending was not being combated
successfully by the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
The reference process allowed me to take a representative sample
of cases to the Court of Appeal to argue that the sentencing guidance
for this type of offending needed to be revisited. The reference
was successful with the Court of Appeal adopting recent guidance
given by the Court of Appeal in London.
I think the judgments, in particular, point
up two of the points I made on Tuesday. The first is that the
Court of Appeal in Belfast give weight to current sentencing guidance
from England and Wales and not just Northern Ireland cases and
has adopted the Sentencing Advisory Panel's Guidance in a number
of areas. Secondly, that although the Court is unable, for a number
of reasons, to substitute in the particular case before it the
sentence that would have been appropriate at first instance, it
provides strong guidance for the lower courts for the future.
The second matter I promised to return to you
on was the possibility of the Committee visiting the new PPS offices
in Lisburn. I understand the Director of Public Prosecutions for
Northern Ireland, Sir Alasdair Fraser; will write to you extending
such an invitation. I know he too welcomes the interest of the
Committee in the roll out of the Service.
I was asked how many PPS staff came from outside
Northern Ireland. I am not yet in a position to provide this figure—key
PPS staff were on leave last week—but will do so as soon
as possible.
The fourth point was to confirm that the two
regional towns for which accommodation has not yet been found
are Newry and Londonderry.
The fifth point was a question from Gregory
Campbell concerning what efforts would be made to try to ensure
that regional offices had a staff reflective of the community.
He has also since tabled a Parliamentary Question on the same
point and I enclose a copy of the Solicitor General's reply. Employment
law and practice in Northern Ireland is complex. It is so to try
to ensure equal opportunity for all and to eliminate any possibility
of discrimination based on community or any other factor. Recruitment
is by open competition and by merit and is carried out for the
PPS by the Northern Ireland Civil Service in accordance with best
practice and guidance from the Civil Service Commissioners. All
PPS staff are Northern Ireland Civil Servants.
Historically, this process has, for the PPS
as a whole, worked well. There are sensitivities about the compilation
and publication of staffing statistics based on community background
and none are compiled or sought by the PPS. However the last time
I was informed, about a year ago, the figures made available by
the Northern Ireland Civil Service showed a community background
breakdown in the PPS of 50% Protestant, 46% Catholic and 4% undetermined.
In staffing individual offices, however desirable a balanced community
breakdown of staff may appear to be, nothing can be done by the
Service that is either illegal or discriminatory. Normal staffing
procedures must be followed.
The sixth point was a request to see the evaluation
reports for the Belfast and Fermanagh and Tyrone pilots. I have
asked the Director to provide these direct.
Finally there were two points of practice. The
first was whether the PPS would have a role in cases referred
to community restorative justice schemes. The answer is yes, all
such references would be through the PPS. This is set out in the
consultation paper issued by the Northern Ireland Office in December
last, a copy of which I enclose. Responses to the consultation
are currently being considered.
The second point was whether local councils
could seek Anti-social Behaviour Orders. The Anti-social Behaviour
(Northern Ireland) Order 2004 provides that the relevant authorities
for applying for such orders are district councils, the Chief
Constable and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Further,
following conviction of a relevant offence the prosecution may
apply for an order to be made or the court may so order on its
own initiative.
I think I have covered the specific points raised
but if I have not, or if there is any other matter on which I
can assist, I would be happy to do so.
24 April 2006
| 
