Clause
2
Certificates:
supplementary
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes
4.
Division
No.
5
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
3
Preliminary
inquiry
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes
1.
Division
No.
6
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill
The
Chairman:
I make the comment to the hon. Member for Foyle
that I made to the hon. Members for North Down and for East Antrim:
persevere with your
principle.
Clause
4
Court
for
trial
Lady
Hermon:
I beg to move amendment No. 29, in
clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave
out subsection (2).
I
am encouraged and inspired by your words, Sir Nicholas. We
shall fight on to amend some of the clauses.
We need some clarification of
the clause from the Minister. It relates to the type of trial that will
take place if a certificate has been issued. The clause states
that:
“A trial
on indictment in relation to which a certificate under section 1 has
been issued”
by the DPP,
who has gone through all the checks and decided that one of the
conditions in clause 1 has been met and that there is a risk to the
administration of justice, will be held at the Crown Court in
Belfast,
“unless the
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland directs
that—
(a) the
trial,
(b) a part of
the trial, or
(c) a
class of trials within which the trial
falls,
is to be held at the
Crown Court sitting
elsewhere.”
The amendment
relates to subsection
(2):
“The Lord
Chief Justice of Northern Ireland maynominate any of the
following to exercise his functions under subsection
(1)—
(a) the
holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice
(Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c.
26);
(b) a Lord
Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that
Act).”
I am worried by
that provision, given the seriousness of the issues that we have
discussed this afternoon and the nature of the cases that would be
referred to non-jury trial. That is not meant as a criticism of the
present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, whom I hold in the
highest esteem, as, I am sure, do hon. Members right across the
House.
In giving the
Lord Chief Justice the discretion to nominate “any of the
following”, the subsection makes reference to schedule 1 to the
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. When I mention individual offices,
it is not meant as a criticism of the holder; I do so because those
offices are listed in that schedule. Listed among the judicial offices
to which the Lord Chief
Justice may delegate the serious responsibility of
deciding on a non-jury trial are the chief child support commissioner
for Northern Ireland; the child support commissioner for Northern
Ireland; the deputy child support commissioner for Northern Ireland;
the president of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, and a member
of the panel of chairmen of the fair employment tribunals. The list
extends to more than a score of judicial offices, including lay
magistrate. Are we to understand that the chief social security
commissioner, the Lands Tribunal president, a lay magistrate, or a
member of the mental health review tribunal, all of whom are in listed
in schedule 1 to the 2002 Act, should be tasked with the great
responsibility of deciding on a non-jury trial? I should have
thought
not. 6.15
pm
If we do not
delete all of subsection (2), perhaps the Minister could have a rethink
about to whom exactly the Lord Chief Justice should delegate. There is
no criticism of his judgment. I just think that lay magistrates, chief
commissioners of social security and presidents of the Lands Tribunal
may be somewhat surprised, to put it mildly, if they have delegated to
them a responsibility for a non-jury trial in Northern Ireland in
relation to a proscribed organisation. That is the point that I wish to
make with this
amendment.
Mr.
Reid:
I agree with the hon. Lady and share her concerns.
Subsection (2) allows the Lord Chief Justice to decide that a trial, a
part of a trial, or a whole class of trials should be held somewhere
other than Belfast. The hon. Lady read out a list of the various
offices to which the Lord Chief Justice could delegate that decision.
Many of the people on that list will not be legally qualified. I am
concerned that they would be taking very important decisions. Members
of various tribunals might not have a legal qualification. I do not
think it appropriate that everyone on that list should have this power.
I am not familiar with all the courts in Northern Ireland and whether
they have the same levels of security as the courts in Belfast. I would
certainly want the Minister to address that issue. Do other courts have
the correct security facilities to protect the identity of witnesses
who have been granted anonymity? The hon. Lady has raised some
important points and I ask the Minister to
respond.
Paul
Goggins:
Once again, the hon. Lady demonstrates the
trouble she goes to in looking into the detail of this. I, too, looked
at the list of office holders in schedule 1. She omitted to mention the
president of the special education needs tribunal for Northern Ireland,
who probably sits alongside some of the other people she mentioned.
They all do their job perfectly well. But that is not the issue she
raises here. This is a case of, “If it ain’t broke,
don’t fix it.” I hope to explain to the hon. Lady why I
believe that we should leave the situation alone. This provision is
similar to one that already operates successfully under the Diplock
court system. We see no reason to change it.
Most non-jury trials take place
in Belfast in circumstances where the greatest security can be
afforded. Hon. Members would expect that.
Occasionally, for various reasons, it may be
necessary and appropriate to hold the proceedings outside Belfast. The
provision gives the Lord Chief Justice the power to make that decision.
It also gives him the power, in the part of the clause to which the
hon. Lady has drawn our attention, to delegate that decision to others.
One can imagine the circumstances when that may occur. For example, if
the Lord Chief Justice is ill, indisposed or away for some reason, it
may be necessary for that decision to be taken in his absence. He needs
the power to delegate. Of course, one would expect the
decision to be delegated to someone with appropriate experience and
seniority. The key judgment here is not about the list. It is about the
Lord Chief Justice’s own capacity to decide who in this list
would be the appropriate person to take that decision. The evidence is
that the Lord Chief Justice has operated a similar system under the
Diplock regime perfectly well and without any cause for concern. It is
therefore perfectly legitimate to continue that arrangement and use
schedule 1 to give the Lord Chief Justice discretion in a way that has
already
worked.
Lady
Hermon:
I am grateful to the Minister for graciously
giving way. The Diplock courts obviously preceded the list in schedule
1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 of people who do their
jobs very competently but are not all legally qualified. Will the
Minister enlighten us as to what used to happen if the Lord Chief
Justice found himself indisposed or too busy? To whom did he
delegate?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Lady has got her own back. I shall need
to check what happened in those days, and I will be happy to write to
her—or to point out that an amendment was made in the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I hope that that answers her question
at least partly. The formulation is standard and has been used a number
of times in legislation such as the 2005 Act which sets out other
functions of the Lord Chief Justice. The system already operates in
relation to Diplock and exists in other legislation to give the Lord
Chief Justice flexibility. It has worked and we see no reason to alter
it in the
Bill.
Mr.
Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I am listening
carefully to the Minister’s case, which is quite persuasive, but
the provision seems a incongruous part of the clause. Before we make a
decision on the amendment it is incumbent on him to share with us the
likely number of cases in which the Lord Chief Justice will be
incapacitated and the number of such cases that have occurred under the
current
situation.
Paul
Goggins:
When I write to the hon. Member for North Down I
will share with the Committee the information that I send her. If I am
able also to share the numbers that the hon. Gentleman mentions I will
happily do so. In 2005, only 49 cases were conducted by non-jury trial.
By definition, the number of those that were delegated by the Lord
Chief Justice is likely to have been small. If there are numbers that I
can share, I will do so and perhaps include them in the same
correspondence as the details requested by the hon. Member for North
Down.
I do not wish to
make heavy weather of the matter: the proposed formulation operates in
other legislation
and has worked in relation to Diplock. We see no
reason to change it, as it works perfectly well. I understand why the
hon. Lady raised the matter—she is rightly scrutinising every
aspect of the Bill. I hope that I have been able to offer her some
reassurance.
Lady
Hermon:
I am indebted to the Minister for trying to
explain why the clause was written as it was. I must point out to him
that there are two paragraphs in subsection (2). Paragraph (b)
specifies that if the Lord Chief Justice is ill or too busy, he can
delegate an important decision to a lord justice of appeal. I shall not
press the amendment, but I look forward with curiosity to hearing the
list of alternatives for the Lord Chief Justice. The Minister has told
us that before the 2002 Act there were more than 300 Diplock court
cases a year, touching on 400. I will be intrigued to find out to whom
the Lord Chief Justice delegated his responsibilities then. The list in
schedule 1 to the 2002 Act includes coroners, for goodness’
sake, and lay magistrates. The alternative is staring us in the face in
paragraph (b). I suggest that the Minister should have a good
night’s sleep and reflect more wisely on the relevant category
of non-jury trials. We should not lose sight of what we are tasking the
judges with; the responsibility is onerous. We have the alternative, a
lord justice of appeal, upon which the Minister needs to reflect
further. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
4 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
