Clause 2 - Repeal of provisions of Part 7
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
11:15 am
Shaun Woodward (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office; St Helens South, Labour)
The amendment would repeal section 75(6) of the 2000 Act, which allows a Diplock court to convict a person of an alternative non-scheduled offence where the defendant is found not guilty of a scheduled offence in that case. That would remove the court’s ability to convict a person of any alternative non-scheduled offences, so no conviction would ever be possible for an alternative non-scheduled offence, however clear the person’s guilt. Under the rule of double jeopardy, no subsequent proceedings could be brought against that person for an alternative offence.
I do not believe that that is what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury wanted to achieve with his amendment. Cases to which section 75(6) apply would have been tried in a Diplock court because the Attorney-General had decided that the offence was connected with the emergency in Northern Ireland. Even if the rule of double jeopardy were overcome and a subsequent jury trial for an alternative non-scheduled offence were possible, there would still be a risk of intimidation of jurors, which Diplock was brought in to counter. If intimidation were to occur, the case could collapse, making a conviction unattainable. Requiring a subsequent trial by jury for an alternative non-scheduled offence would also add significant delay to the criminal justice system. Although jury trial remains our ideal, Diplock courts provide a high quality of justice. I do not believe that jury trial would be worth the significant extra delay, when the issues in the case would already have been fully aired and debated.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a specific detail. I undertake to write to him. I looked to my officials with desperation. As desperation has not brought them quickly to my aid and as I do not intend to waffle and delay the Committee, I shall of course undertake to write to him.