Clause 7
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
6:45 pm
Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
I apologise, Sir Nicholas. I have full faith in the ability of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, to cover the other matters, but I do wish to make a point about clause 7.
Once again, it is not necessary to repeat everything that was said on Second Reading, but there are significant issues about the clause. In essence, clause 7 is objectionable because it just does not take account of the observations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue. My party did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but I did say in the debate at that time that if clause 7 were not removed or massively altered, we would not support the Bill on Third Reading.
The key reason for opposing the clause is one that has already been indirectly alluded to by the hon. Member for Foyle. Not only is there no provision in the Bill for an appeal against a decision of trial without jury, but appeal is expressly prohibited. We believe that that is completely wrong. Furthermore—in my judgment at least—it cannot be right that the Director of Public Prosecutions can issue a certificate for a trial to be conducted without a jury, without the defendant even having any means to make representations to the DPP, or having any means of appeal.
A similar proposal was made in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill 2004. What was then clause 11 of that Bill would have inserted new section 108A in the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002. That provision would have cut off all appeals and judicial review by the ordinary courts on immigration matters. It would also have excluded habeas corpus applications in immigration cases. At the time, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a damning report on the provision. It stated that the Committee regarded the proposed restriction as
“inherently objectionable as an attack on an important element of the scheme for protecting Convention rights in the United Kingdom.”
That quotation comes from paragraph 1.28 of the Committee’s third report, dated 19 January 2004.
Despite attempts by the Government to assuage the Committee’s concerns, a second report stated that
“it could be strongly argued that the ouster of judicial review of tribunal decisions contemplated by clause 11 has not been justified by any argument advanced by the Government. There is a real danger that this would violate the rule of law in breach of international law, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the fundamental principles of our common law.”
That was in paragraph 71 of the Committee’s fifth report, dated 2 February 2004. As far as I am concerned, the provisions before us are the same—albeit in a different piece of legislation—and are equally objectionable.