Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(4 days, 22 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members who have come this evening to discuss this important piece of legislation, which was laid before the House on 6 May 2025. I also thank all those who work towards peace, security and justice in Northern Ireland.
The draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, the provisions would expire on 31 July this year. The non-jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for non-jury trial in exceptional circumstances where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired were the trial to be conducted by a jury. The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service.
In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give the reasons for any conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentencing or conviction, without leave. The Secretary of State has determined, following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
I reassure the Committee that, in Northern Ireland today, there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, of all Crown court cases in Northern Ireland, only 0.7% were conducted without a jury—that is 10 out of 1,501 cases. However, the non-jury trial provisions, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, not only protect potential jurors from the threat of intimidation but often offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury.
I further reassure the Committee that the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. The public consultation received 17 responses: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed to extending the provisions for a further two years, and five neither clearly supported nor objected to extending the provisions. The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and witnesses fear participating in the criminal justice system, and that there is a continued risk of jury intimidation.
Some of the responses against extending the provisions suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland. However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of those provisions is set much higher than under the 2007 Act, which makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable level of risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice.
In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provision for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of juror bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated to be an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of those responses to the consultation were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the Northern Ireland Office web pages on gov.uk. That was published on 6 May, the day this draft order was laid before the House.
As well as the public consultation, the Secretary of State’s decision has been informed by the indicators identified by the working group on non-jury trials in 2022. That group was established following recommendations by the former independent reviewer of the Justice and Security Act, and was composed of representatives from the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Court service, the Bar, the Law Society and other independent organisations.
The group developed a set of indicators to assist the Secretary of State in determining whether these non-jury trial provisions remain necessary in Northern Ireland. Those indicators included several indices of the current levels of paramilitary activity and intimidation in Northern Ireland. In conjunction with the consultation responses, the Secretary of State considered those indicators and determined that they demonstrate that it would not be appropriate to remove the non-jury trial provisions at this time.
The Secretary of State and I are aware of the unease that some may feel about the extension of these measures, but I thank those who have worked courageously over the years to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe. From those efforts, real progress has been made since the worst days of the troubles to reduce the threat posed by paramilitarism. However, that threat has not been sufficiently reduced. In the period since the last extension of these provisions, the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism was severe, until being lowered to substantial in March 2024, where it has remained. Regrettably, the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in some Northern Ireland communities necessitates the extension of these provisions.
I am very aware that this will be the ninth extension of these non-jury trial provisions, which were designed to be temporary, but the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount, and the administration of justice cannot risk being impaired in our society—our society that has come so far since the dark days of the troubled past. The normalisation of the justice and security arrangements in Northern Ireland, when it is safe to do so and compatible with the interests of justice, is a priority of this Government.
Therefore, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from these provisions, when the time is right. We are not taking this for granted; however, at this time, further progress on the Northern Ireland security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trial provisions are no longer required.
The Government will of course continue to work strategically with security partners to tackle the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. That is why this Government have increased funding to £37.8 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s additional security fund, and confirmed £8 million for the executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. In March, the Government confirmed £20.4 million for justice transformation measures, which was agreed by the public service transformation board and undertaken by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee that the Secretary of State did not take this decision lightly, and that all the relevant information was considered. I am sure that I can count on the support of Members across the Committee. While our aim is to normalise all security arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so, for the moment these provisions remain necessary to safeguard the administration of justice.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Conservative party remains wholeheartedly committed to trial by jury, a right that was first recorded in our laws in 997, but is thought to be even more ancient. The jury system obviously has a central place in how we run our justice system. It brings the public into that system, and gives them great confidence in the way in which the system is run. However, we entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wishing to extend the operation of the measures, given the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland. Only last month, we saw a number of minor sectarian attacks in north Belfast and Larne, which remind us that, despite the highly courageous work of the PSNI and others, the stain of paramilitarism persists.
On that subject, will the Minister update the Committee on an announcement that the Secretary of State made in February? The Secretary of State said that he would appoint an independent expert to consider whether there was any merit in talking to paramilitary groups with a view to seeing them disbanded. It has been five months since that announcement, and I think the Committee would be grateful to understand where that thought process has led.
Although we fully support the draft order, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the circumstances in which the certificates have been used in the past year. I think she said that a right to a jury was withdrawn by DPP certificate in only 10 of 1,501 trials, or 0.7% of cases. Were there any instances in which an application was made for a certificate but the DPP refused to give one? In addition, can she tell us whether there were any legal challenges to certificates that the DPP issued? Also, I understand that three responses to the consultation suggested that the policy should not be continued. For the benefit of the Committee, will she outline what the objections to the continuance of the policy were?
Notwithstanding those small matters, the Opposition are happy to support the draft order.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to all those professionals in Northern Ireland who seek to bring safety, security and justice to all residents and inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
The Liberal Democrats acknowledge with reluctance the need for these provisions to be extended further. In 2024, the number of shooting incidents declined to 17—roughly half the figure from the previous year—and that has to be considered a great advance, but I note with concern that have still been 70 discernible threats and attacks on journalists since 2019. I also note what the Minister said about the ongoing challenges of delivering justice in Northern Ireland. Indeed, as part of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I recently heard evidence in Northern Ireland and here about some of the ongoing challenges of violence against journalists. Those incidents highlight the ongoing challenges to conducting jury trials in a very small number of sensitive cases in Northern Ireland.
Given those circumstances, we fully accept that extending the provisions for a further two years is necessary. However, it is our sincere hope—I am sure that it is the sincere hope of everybody on the Committee—that this may just be the final time that the measures have to be extended. I am reassured to hear the Minister say that the Secretary of State is seeking to work towards the normalisation of the position. We support the draft order, but hope it is the final time that we must do so.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I have listened to the contributions of people who hold various positions in Northern Ireland, as someone who actually lives there and represents a political party there, the Ulster Unionist party. Our response to this consultation was supportive of the extension of non-jury trials, because normalisation in Northern Ireland is not there yet. As a party that has struggled since 1998 to get us to that position, we still have a long way to go. The extension of these trials is a necessary but unfortunate part of that.
I join others in paying tribute to all those who have served in Northern Ireland to bring about security and peace, and all those who sacrificed their lives in obtaining it. We are in a situation in Northern Ireland where Operation Helvetic is still operational; we have armed services personnel on the streets of Northern Ireland. The counter to that—unfortunately and reprehensibly—is that we still have anti-state paramilitary groups, which continue to affect anyone who is considered to be part of the security services or security structure in Northern Ireland. That extends even to those who serve or will serve on juries.
I note that there are four conditions listed in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Condition 1
“is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a person who is a member of a proscribed organisation”.
Condition 2
“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation”.
Condition 3
“is that an attempt has been made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution”
regarding a proscribed organisation. Those conditions lay out the differential in Northern Ireland: there is still recognition by Government and our judicial system that proscribed organisations have an adverse influence on not just community and society but our judicial system. That is why we support the extension of these provisions, which are needed at this time.
Condition 4
“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent…as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility”.
Have the Government or the Secretary of State considered how that may be extended in Northern Ireland? There are other areas that paramilitaries and proscribed organisations are moving into; their hostilities, attacks and abuses are not solely based on religious or political oversight or beliefs.
The other point that we raised in our consultation response was the need for an oversight mechanism to review the decisions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. I think that has the support of the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
With regard to the work that the Secretary of State is considering, a sentencing council is lacking within Northern Ireland’s justice system, unlike in England and Wales. We believe that a sentencing council must be established for all Crown court cases, but in the interim, it should be in place to support the judge in their deliberations on these decisions. Indeed, that is the basis for a motion that my party is bringing to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be considered tomorrow. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My other point is on the differential, which I talked about with regard to the first three conditions, when it comes to proscribed organisations. We firmly believe that anyone who is found guilty and receives a custodial sentence should not be given the automatic right to enter the separated prison regime on request. In Northern Ireland, not only do we have non-jury trials but when a criminal is sentenced they can request to be put in a special wing within a prison, where their paramilitary status can be recognised and honoured, and they can still be given the credence that they held as a member of a proscribed organisation—a criminal organisation—within the prison system. It is my party’s belief that there should be an end to that segregated system within Northern Ireland. We believe that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State should ensure that the criteria for anyone entering the separated prison regime is open to scrutiny.
As we try to normalise Northen Ireland society, it is important that we maintain mechanisms to protect us from those who would seek to undermine our justice system. We must also ensure that our system of justice actually matches the advancements in society. Maintaining limited non-jury trials for another two years while ending the segregated prison regime are important measures that can be taken in the short term.
Fleur Anderson
I thank Members for those contributions, which I will go through one by one.
The independent expert is currently being recruited. The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have agreed to appoint that expert, who will operate within the existing Independent Reporting Commission framework and be asked to undertake a scoping exercise through a broad programme of engagement to consider whether there are barriers to paramilitary disbandment that may need to be addressed through a formal process.
The expert will test levels of public support for any process that might be established to deal with those issues, and produce a final report within 12 months of starting that sets out what they have heard through their engagement and their assessment of whether a formal process would be useful. It is very much about scoping: there is no prejudgment about whether there will be a formal process; they will just consider it. The work to appoint that person is ongoing.
Alex Burghart
By when does the Minister hope to see that independent expert appointed—by the summer, the autumn or the end of the year? Can she give us a sense of how long the process will take?
Fleur Anderson
The process is now up to talking with potential candidates. We want the expert to be in place as soon as possible. I will not give a precise date, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that.
In 2023, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued 20 certificates for non-jury trials and refused three, and, in 2024, issued 17 and refused five, in line with the four conditions. I can provide further information on what the reasons were.
Respondents to the consultation who opposed the extension of the provisions felt that Northern Ireland should move towards normalisation of the criminal justice system by relying on alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Some stated that non-jury trials are now treated as normal, with insufficient consideration given to challenging established narratives, and noted that there is a lack of evidence of jury intimidation due to the long-term existence of non-jury trial powers.
Like all Members present, we want to move to jury trials for all. However, in a small number of circumstances, we have decided to continue non-jury trials. We agree with all of those who responded to the consultation to say that they want to move away from that as soon as possible. That is why we will be looking at this issue for the next two-year period, if that is agreed to today.
I agree that the threatening and intimidation of journalists is a very serious issue for our democracy and for justice, and is therefore pertinent to our discussion today. I commend the PSNI on the progress that it has made to address journalist safety in Northern Ireland directly, including the appointment of journalist safety officers. We should support those measures and everything done to support journalists and their safety.
On the points made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, there are four conditions for allowing a non-jury trial. They are broad and cover a broad range of circumstances. However, the additional test of the risk to the administration of justice must also be met before the Director of Public Prosecutions grants a non-jury trial certificate. Since the provisions have been in place, the Director of Public Prosecutions has shown that he applies that statutory test stringently. As I said, certificates were not granted in five cases in 2024. However, that issue is pertinent and should be part of the conversation for the next two years.
On the oversight of Northern Ireland’s non-jury trial system, in the course of the renewal debate in 2017, when Parliament agreed to extend the non-jury trial provisions, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Chloe Smith, committed to keep the provisions under regular independent review by requesting that the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 include non-jury trials in their annual report. Recommendations made since then by the independent reviewer have led to more efficient engagement between the PSNI and the PPS, a reduction in processing times and improvements to the administration of the process. Again, this is a good discussion to continue with.
The Northern Ireland justice system is lacking a sentencing council, as the hon. Member for South Antrim highlighted. The justice system is devolved, as he will know very well, and the establishment of the sentencing council is a decision for the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional public service transformation funding, which I hope will be a part of the whole story of addressing the need to speed up the criminal justice system and make the other changes needed.
Robin Swann
What are the Minister’s and the Government’s thoughts on whether a specific office of a sentencing council would be a positive thing to have in Northern Ireland, given that there already is a Sentencing Council in England and Wales? On the bid that the Justice Minister made, does the Minister know whether any of that money was actually to consider the creation of a sentencing council in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
I am not privy to all the deliberations and projects that were considered but then not put through to the public sector transformation board, so I do not know; that would be a question for the Executive, as would the proposal of a sentencing council. I will not give any opinions on that because it is a devolved matter, but I know the hon. Member and others will raise it with the Executive directly.
In terms of a separated prison regime, a person found guilty following a non-jury trial is not automatically entitled to entry to the separated regime. A prisoner may be granted entry to separated accommodation only if they meet a set of six criteria. Matters related to the operation and resourcing of prisons in Northern Ireland are devolved and therefore the responsibility of the Department of Justice. The Secretary of State is responsible only for setting the criteria for entry into separated accommodation. In practice, the Secretary of State’s functions, including decisions on entry into separated accommodation, are carried out by the Department of Justice, which is authorised to do so under the prisons direction, an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland that is reviewed on an annual basis.
Let us keep talking about this provision, and let us all keep hoping that in two years’ time we will see a different situation in Northern Ireland, and the continuation of the work towards peace and reconciliation there that I see in my work across Northern Ireland all the time. This morning, I was at London Tech Week, meeting with Irish and Northern Irish companies and businesses, and others who want to invest in Northern Ireland as a special hub of tech. Those kinds of conversations are a good counter, and show the progress being made across Northern Ireland. Once again, I thank all those who contribute towards peace and security in Northern Ireland, as we have all done today.
Question put and agreed to.