recent and on-going activities
Over the last year we have been involved in two major, interrelated projects stemming from the Criminal Justice Review established as a result of the Belfast Agreement. These projects involve:
In November 2002 we appointed a new member of staff on an 18 month contract, Clare Fox, to work specifically on these particular areas. Her addition to the team has considerably increased our capacity to intervene on issues in the criminal justice domain.
Implementation of the Criminal Justice Review
In relation firstly to implementing the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review both the
Government's Implementation Plan for the Review (2001) (943KB)
and the subsequent Justice (NI) Act 2002 were grossly inadequate. Indeed, in certain instances they actually diluted or omitted original Review recommendations. We were particularly concerned about inadequacies in the proposals in respect of judicial appointments procedures and the independence of the prosecution system. We worked hard to convince the government of the need for a revised Implementation Plan, for additional legislation to amend the Justice Act and for an independent oversight mechanism, analogous to that created to oversee police reform. We are happy to say that in all three respects these demands have, to varying extents, been realised.
In December 2002, the Government announced its intention to appoint an Independent Oversight Commissioner to scrutinise the changes to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. In June 2003 Lord Clyde, the former Scottish Law Lord, was appointed to this position. We have now met with Lord Clyde on a number of occasions and have presented him with a written submission on our expectations of the role and function of his Office. We also highlighted a number of areas of the Review which we feel merit his particular attention and included a series of suggestions on ways to maximise the full potential of his Office. We have made this document widely available to all of those who have an interest in the process of criminal justice reform.
Towards the end of June 2003 the Government also published an Updated Implementation Plan. On the whole, we welcomed this revised Plan as a significant improvement on the original document. In substantive terms, the information on timescales and content is both more defined and comprehensive. Deadlines, while still self-imposed by the very agencies at whom the reforms are directed, have nevertheless been set. We prepared and circulated a written submission on the Updated Plan, outlining in detail our response to the various new implementing measures and highlighting areas of continuing concern. Many of our proposals have been provided for in the plan and we feel that we have had some impact in influencing its content.
During the year we held meetings with the Northern Ireland Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court Service and the Judicial Appointments Commissioner to discuss their progress in implementing the respective recommendations under the Review and to encourage them to both increase the pace and improve the quality of implementation. We have since maintained written correspondence on these matters. Among other things, we have specifically called upon all the agencies to take steps to help achieve a "reflective workforce" (recommendation 4 of the Review) and to introduce equity monitoring (recommendation 5). Generally speaking CAJ has been disappointed that there appears to be a lack of focus on this issue within many of the criminal justice agencies. We have also encouraged the DPP to consult widely on the new draft codes of ethics and practice and the new complaints procedures to be introduced as part of the reforms to the Prosecution Service. Recently we were invited to attend an information event to launch the new Prosecution Service and were able to raise publicly our concerns over the progress on measures to enhance the accountability of the Prosecution Service and to ensure a reflective workforce.
One of the most encouraging aspects of the Updated Implementation Plan was the commitment that it contained to introduce amending legislation to the Justice Act, via a new Criminal Justice Bill . The proposed provisions for this new Bill, listed in the Preface to the Plan, very much reflect the areas that CAJ has repeatedly raised with the two governments, the political parties and the respective criminal justice agencies. In our submission to the Office of the Oversight Commissioner, as mentioned above, we called upon Lord Clyde to take an active role in relation to scrutinising this proposed legislation to ensure that it gives full effect to the nature and substance of the Review. We locate each of the proposed provisions for the new Bill within the original Review recommendations and make the case to the Commissioner that this work falls clearly within his terms of reference. CAJ will of course also lobby parliamentarians on the subject of the Bill, both before publication and as it goes through parliament to ensure that the substance of the legislation is not reduced at any stage. Past experience unfortunately shows that commitments made are not always fully translated into the legislation.
International Comparative Research Project
The second of our two main initiatives in the criminal justice area is an international comparative research project. We were concerned that there has been very little thinking or debate about the possible form and shape of a devolved criminal justice system and in particular about the possible institutional models to be adopted. CAJ felt that it was important for us to contribute to and stimulate a debate and believed that this was an area where international experience could provide some useful and relevant lessons. Given our mandate, we were concerned to find institutional models which maximise human rights protection, promote accountability and protect minorities. We were also interested in seeking out comparative material on initiatives to institutionalise a human rights culture, innovative justice models, the use of emergency powers, and the problems of overlapping jurisdictions. Our initial selection of countries for potential comparative analysis was based on the following criteria: countries with divided societies or a history of conflict; countries with experience of federal or decentralised structures of government; and countries which have had either success or failure in integrating distinct political, religious, ethnic and linguistic groups. On this basis we selected Canada, South Africa, the Basque Country, Belgium, Scotland and Switzerland. In relation to the first four of these jurisdictions we commissioned background reports from academics and legal practitioners.
We have recently undertaking country visits to South Africa and Belgium to pursue further a number of the areas which we believe are of particular interest and relevance to Northern Ireland. It is our intention to present the results of this work in both written format and via a conference or series of seminars. It seems likely that any agreement to restore devolution will include a time-frame for the devolution of criminal justice and policing. We hope to optimise the degree of political impact of our work and this will therefore clearly guide our final decisions regarding how, when, and to whom to present our findings. The target audience will consist principally of politicians and policy-makers, but results will also be disseminated to, and debated with, other key stakeholders in the voluntary and community sectors.
Owing to the political uncertainty surrounding the pace of justice and policing devolution, we felt that in the interim it was essential to at least engender some debate on the potential future arrangements. Last February therefore we prepared a 'questions' paper and circulated this amongst all of the political parties and the representatives of the two governments. It would seem that this paper has had some impact in that some of its contents are reflected in the Joint Declaration published by the two governments in April 2003.
More generally, CAJ has continued to raise the issue of emergency legislation. While the government has shown little willingness to substantially alter the Terrorism Act, we have continued to argue that it be repealed or at least significantly changed so that the aspects of it which apply only to Northern Ireland are deleted. International developments since "9/11" have meant that our experience of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland has been the focus of increased interest. Many are interested in learning from the Northern Ireland situation, and CAJ is keen to use any opportunity to emphasise the risks created by draconian responses which feed and fuel, rather than effectively address, violence.
We have met with the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres to hear how the recommendations made by Patten for paramilitary suspects to be housed in ordinary police stations are progressing.
Towards the end of 2003 we also prepared a response to the draft Civil Contingencies Bill (see submission S 145 
). This is a Bill which makes provision for situations of emergency affecting the UK or any part of the UK. It allows for Ministers in certain circumstances to declare emergencies and also allows them to disapply previous enactments of Parliament including, for instance, the Human Rights Act. We will continue to monitor this Bill as it progresses through the legislative process.
Top
