Matthew O'Toole has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary.

Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Justice to update the Assembly on her Department’s position on appealing the High Court ruling on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, pursuant to the publication of a story regarding such an appeal in the 'Belfast Telegraph'.

The report in the 'Belfast Telegraph' that I am appealing the judgement is factually incorrect. I have made no decision as yet on appeal. In my consideration of the way forward and informed by legal opinion, I wrote to Executive colleagues on 28 June to make them aware of the consequential impacts of what is a profound constitutional ruling by the court that will have repercussive impacts across every Stormont Department and the legislative process and to seek their views on that point. The legal advice available to me makes it clear that there are potentially far-reaching ramifications for the Assembly and all Departments. This is the first time that the High Court has used the power in section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to declare provisions to be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly and not law. It would be hugely remiss of me not to make my Executive colleagues aware of the extent of the judgement in that respect.

The court judgement declared that sections 12 to 14 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 are not law, as they are outside the legislative competence of the Assembly, since they are incompatible with the applicant's article 10 rights. That incompatibility finding is a very narrow one that could be addressed in a number of ways, including by legislative amendment. Those sections are not the reason for any potential appeal. I intend to give further consideration to a Justice-specific response to that aspect of the judgement, irrespective of any decision about whether to take forward an appeal.

The judgement imposes a high standard of rationality on the reasoning in the Assembly and Committee debates during the passage of legislation. That is likely to generate future challenges to legislative competence based on a forensic dissection of the quality and rationality of Assembly and Committee debates. That is a finding that imposes a threshold standard on the legislative process that will be difficult to meet in practice. The approach taken by the court risks undermining the effectiveness of the Assembly. The assumption that a matter not debated has not been adequately considered is not in line with the reality of the operation of the political scrutiny process, which cannot be fully considered by simply reading Hansard or Committee minutes. It is on those constitutional matters and their potential impacts alone that I sought the views of Executive colleagues. While any decision on an appeal is for me to take, it is important, given the wider ramifications identified, that I consider their responses before making any decisions as to the way forward. The deadline for responses is 5.00 pm today. When I have reached a decision, I will ensure, as I previously promised, that I notify MLAs as a matter of urgency.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you said that a decision has not been made, but the reporting is clearly that you are minded to appeal and that that was the argument that you made to Executive colleagues. It is important to acknowledge that, given the timelines that you have outlined, you are seeking to leave office in 48 hours' time, so you may not be there to make the decision. People expect honesty and humility from their public representatives. I acknowledge the constitutional context in which you made your argument, but, given the representations from advocates of a free press and victims of sexual crime, do you continue to support post-death anonymity for sex offenders?

Perhaps, if the Member read the judgement rather than the 'Belfast Telegraph', he would have a better grasp of what the issues are. The judge did not find that post-death anonymity was inappropriate or that the matter was outwith the legislative competence of the Assembly. The judge found that there was inadequate opportunity to challenge, during the lifetime of a suspect, the ability to publish their details. As I have already said clearly, there are legislative fixes for both, either or none of those issues. That is not the issue on which I was consulting Executive colleagues.

I thank the Minister for coming along and giving a bit of clarity. We are here in the context of the High Court having spoken and struck down the defective sections in the Act because they are incompatible with article 10 European Convention rights on press rights and freedom of expression. Sinn Féin is opposed to any appeal of the judgement. Will the Minister outline what steps she will take and in what timeline, if she has it, to address the defective sections and ensure that the Act meets the needs of victims, is in the public interest and, importantly, restores the balance of convention rights?

That is a matter for another day. The pressure currently before the Department is to decide whether the overall judgement should be appealed on the basis of the constitutional issues that arise and flow from it. However, as I have said, there are opportunities, including during this term, to redress the imbalance that the court decided on. Alternatively, the sections being struck down means that they are no longer in operation. Therefore, we could simply allow the Act to continue as is: with no control whatsoever over the publication of the names of people who have been accused of but not charged with or convicted of an offence.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying her position. Before there is any doubling down and spending of public money that could be put towards essential front-line services, will the Minister outline what she will consider when weighing up her decision? Will she consider whether the principle is worth it, the likelihood of her being successful and whether any such challenge is of greater merit than the need that exists in her Department?

I am glad that the Chair of the Committee has asked an insightful question on cost, because it is important. The costs to the Department of the judicial review up to this point have not been significant. The cost to the Department of any appeal would be similar. Consideration of costs will, of course, form part of my consideration on the way forward. However, the substantive consequential impacts of the judgement will be the primary factor in my decision. The cost to the public purse and to the Assembly and Committees of having to spend time taking evidence on and debating and minuting exchanges on sections that are non-controversial and widely agreed would, in all likelihood, be way more significant than the cost of any appeal. I have to weigh up all those factors and the degree to which there is consensus around the Executive table on whether this is a matter of importance. Ultimately, that is the consideration that I will get after the deadline of 5.00 pm this evening.

The Minister is aware that we first met on 19 February to discuss section 12, which is part of the repeal by Justice Humphreys. In that regard, given the public interest and the further outreach by victims of historical sexual abuse and crimes, has the Minister had meetings with any of those bodies in the intervening time and taken into consideration the impact of the law on how they feel?

I have, indeed, had representations from and a direct meeting with a number of bodies that represent people who are in that space. There was no intention by me as Minister, my officials, Sir John Gillen, who asked that there be anonymity up to the point of charge, or any Member of the House who passed that legislation to cause any harm or distress to any victim; quite the contrary. The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill was brought forward with a view to enhancing the protections for victims in court and in wider society. It is important that we reflect on that. I am absolutely clear that there was no intention on anyone's part to cause harm, nor would I ever wish to do so.

I thank the Minister for providing an update to the House and the leader of the Opposition for tabling the question. During a previous item of business, the Member for East Antrim placed much importance on an editorial in the 'News Letter' supporting a stance that he has taken. That paper has described any attempt to appeal the judgement as "wrong-headed". Does the Minister agree with that editorial that any appeal would be wrong-headed? Can she confirm that any appeal would require the approval of the Executive as a whole and that it would not be possible for the Minister to act alone?

The Member has raised two issues. First, should I take my legal advice from the KC and senior counsel who are intimately engaged with the case or from an editorial of a newspaper? The answer to that should be clear even to the person who asked the question. I will base my decision on legal advice and not on opinion or editorialisation of the matter. There have been unhelpful mistruths and miscommunications on what has been asked. It would be helpful if people returned to the original judgement when looking at the matter.

In respect of my ability to take forward an appeal as Justice Minister, it is clear that I do not need Executive approval. At this stage, the decision is mine to make, because the primary finding was for DOJ and was therefore not a cross-cutting issue. However, I have recognised that the matter is of significant importance and have made Executive colleagues aware of the wider constitutional matters raised in the judgement and sought their point of view. I will take those views into account when considering the correct way forward.

That concludes the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice.