Clause 1 - Guarantee of continued judicial independence
Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
10:45 am
I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'continued'.
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. No doubt your briskness will rub off on us—or I hope and trust that it will.
This amendment is not the most serious or important that the Committee will consider, but it touches a chord. The use of the word ''continued'' in the first line of the Bill poses a question. It is included in the Bill without any reference to the review or without seeming to derive from it. That implies a certain attitude. One assumes that the administration
of justice is always impartial and just, so that word is superfluous. I believe that it is superfluous. For that reason, it is right that we should examine the matter at this initial stage.
I do not have to point out that the independence of the judiciary is emphasised in the European convention on human rights, which recognises the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. I therefore welcome the criminal justice review recommendation that
''primary Westminster legislation should make explicit reference to the requirement for an independent judiciary and place a duty on the organs of government to uphold and protect that independence.''
The principle underlying clause 1 is eminently sound, but I have two concerns regarding its implementation. The amendment addresses the first of my concerns, and relates to the use of the word ''continued''. The review, it is noticeable, did not recommend that that word be included. The word was never used in the review, for good reason. That can hardly have been accidental, given the nature of the Bill and the controversy surrounding the system of justice and law in Northern Ireland during the many decades since the state was formed.
The use of the word ''continued'' poses questions for all of us. It is especially important because we are discussing a new beginning, not just for the criminal justice system and the political process in Northern Ireland, but for policing. It is a new attitude to life. If we retain that word, we will, by implication, be trawling something from the past and carrying it into what we envisage for the future. It is superfluous. Whether or not the judiciary was independent in the past is a matter for debate, but it is irrelevant to my point. If the judiciary had been fully independent, would we now be dealing with a Bill of this nature and size?
The amendment is not the most important one that we will consider, but if we are starting on something new and dealing with something that looks to the future, rather than harking back to the past, the use of ''continued'' is superfluous. It is also pejorative about the past, and perhaps we should try to dispel such attitudes. I commend the amendment to the Committee.