Mixed feelings about Criminal Justice Review
From The Irish News - 11th December 2001
by Breidge Gadd
Irish News columnist Breidge Gadd reviews the draft legislation (presently at consultation stage) as a result of the British government's acceptance of the Criminal Justice Review THE Criminal Justice Review, established under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, and the subsequent Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, presently out for consultation, with a deadline of December 12, has always been the small and less obviously significant cousin of the Patten report on policing and its subsequent Police (Northern Ireland) 2000 Act.
Indeed in comparison to Patten, whose membership contained an international group of independent experts, the members of the Criminal Justice Review group were civil servants from the Northern Ireland Office and its associate justice bodies.
The same roles, if not the same people, wrote the response to their own recommendations, and then subsequently wrote the draft legislation introducing the proposed changes. So the review and followon has been very much the product of the Northern Ireland Office, without the benefit, apart from an initial advisory group, of external oversight.
While policing is undoubtedly top of the priority list, how individuals are processed through the criminal justice system after arrest and charge is also critical to the level of confidence shown by the public in the system.
Now that the Policing Board is up and running it would be tempting to consider the main work done and ignore the impending justice provision. This would be a mistake.
The police and justice legislation are two parts of an interconnecting whole. The success of one is critical to the success of the other.
Therefore the new proposals deserve analysis.The proposals fall naturally into two parts. There are legislative changes concerning the appointment, training etc of judges and magistrates. There are also proposals regarding changes in the role of the Public Prosecution Service, in the appointment of an attorney general and in the setting up of a Northern Ireland law commission.
This is not my area of expertise and I will leave comment on these matters to those qualified to do so. I do have knowledge and expertise in what happens after someone has been found guilty by the courts, particularly in the area of community sanctions, having worked for more than 30 years in the probation service.
I have also, through my involvement in the Council of Europe, had the opportunity to become familiar with the workings of the criminal justice systems throughout Europe, and I have some knowledge of the situation in Australia, New Zealand and America. I therefore have a fair idea of what will work and what will not.
Before looking in more detail at some of the proposed provision in new community sanctions I cannot help but comment on the surprising proposal in the section on public prosecution. Patten rightly emphasised the need for all public bodies to be open, honest and accountable. Indeed, the powers of the police ombudsman to investigate every complaint against the police set the very highest standard for independent scrutiny.
One would expect that all bodies with responsibility for investigating and processing crime would have the same standards.
Not so for the new public prosecutors office. The government rejects even its own officials' recommendation for an independent element in investigating complaints claiming "systems exist so that complaints are examined independently by a member of staff other than the person whose actions or decisions have given rise to the complaint" (Recommendation 56 P 33 Criminal Justice Review implementation plan). |
