JUST NEWS SEPTEMBER 2000 ISSUE
CAJ's response to the report of the Criminal Justice Review
Prosecution system
The recommendations of the Review in relation to the prosecution system are amongst the most far-reaching in the Report. If fully implemented, we believe they would transform the current arrangements for the prosecution system. However the Review does not appear to have actually examined files in the office of the DPP relating to a number of the controversial cases outlined in our submission (Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Nora McCabe, John Stalker etc). Nevertheless it is apparent that the Review has addressed some of the difficult issues raised by the cases we highlighted and those mentioned by others. We acknowledge that the views shared by us and others about these cases were reflected in the section dealing with the consultation exercise. We remain concerned however that if these cases are not resolved they will continue to cast a shadow over the new Prosecution Service envisaged by the Review. We are strongly of the view that satisfactory resolution of these cases in the context of institutional and personal accountability is essential if the new Prosecution Service is to command public confidence.
Restorative justice
While CAJ has not been very active on the issue of restorative justice, we were keen to ensure that all such schemes should act lawfully, non-violently and within strict human rights parameters. We were concerned that the Review recommended that such projects should only receive referrals from statutory criminal justice agencies rather than the community, and that the police should be informed of such referrals. Surely one of the key strengths of restorative justice is its close relationship with local communities. If local restorative justice projects are acting non-violently, lawfully, and have been properly trained to protect the rights of all participants, we cannot understand why local communities should not be able to directly take advantage of restorative justice service in their area.
We would strongly urge that this recommendation be reconsidered. As we argued in our initial submission, relations between community projects acting in a lawful and non-violent fashion and statutory agencies will best develop at a natural pace, and in an organic fashion. Partnership cannot be imposed, it must be encouraged and nurtured at the pace of the local communities themselves.
Emergency Laws
In addition we are concerned that the failure of the Review to engage with the issue of emergency laws has left government in sole control of the pace of change in relation to that vital area. As the Review itself recognised their "efforts to develop proposals for a fair, rights-based, and effective criminal justice system which inspired the confidence of the community as a whole could not be divorced from the outcome of those separate reviews" [into policing and emergency laws].
In the event that emergency laws continue to operate, the future of the recommendations of the Review may be fatally flawed in terms of public confidence. While the Review felt that it was constrained by its terms of reference from engaging with the issue of emergency laws, this distinction will undoubtedly be lost on many of those on the receiving end of the use and abuse of such laws. We believe the chances of a new criminal justice system commanding the confidence of the public will be maximised if the use of emergency laws is consigned to the past.
In the introduction to our main submission to the Review we said that the issue for the Review was not "whether change is needed, but how much change is needed. In our view fundamental and thoroughgoing change is required to undo the damage to community confidence in the system of the administration of criminal justice in this jurisdiction." We believe the Review, as reflected in the number and extent of its recommendations, agreed that significant change was required. While, as indicated above, we believe that the Review has made a significant beginning to the task of creating a new accountable criminal justice system, we are of the firm view that its recommendations are a floor not a ceiling for the required programme of change. We will be working to ensure that this is the case.
Paul Mageean |
