Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2021

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Baroness Barker

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, as the Minister and others have said, this is the seventh time that we are renewing these regulations—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The vote has been called, so we will move to the vote and, after five minutes, come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her full speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the Divisions in the House have been deferred because of the technical problems and we will therefore resume our debate. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to begin her speech again.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I repeat that this is the seventh time that we are renewing these regulations. I am very pleased that the Government say that they want to see an end to the use of non-jury trials when it is safe to do so and compatible with the interests of justice. Now is clearly not that time, so I support the renewal today, but I believe that this an opportunity to look at some of the conditions in the regulations. I welcome the Independent Reviewer David Seymour having said that

“the time has come for serious assessment”

of whether non-jury trials “remain necessary”. I also welcome the working party that the Secretary of State has set up and would be interested to know whether the Minister has any idea of its timescale.

David Seymour’s report also said that in marginal cases the DPP

“should consider not issuing a certificate”

but putting in more jury-protection measures. Is this also being considered?

As a non-lawyer I get the feeling that, sometimes, going for a non-jury trial could be seen as a softer option. We do need to look at some of these conditions. On one of the tests, the Director of Public Prosecutions can certify only if he suspects that any of the conditions prescribed in the subsection are met and if he also suspects that, because such conditions are met, there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired with a jury. However, the threshold for “suspicion” is low—suspicion is a lesser state of mind than belief. While suspicion might be entertained in good faith and is not therefore to be regarded as synonymous with a pretext, it surely follows that suspicion may be shown subsequently to be entirely unfounded; a suspicion must be capable of rational justification.

One of the conditions is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a member of a proscribed organisation, or has at any time been a member of an organisation that was at that time proscribed. But Section 1(9) gives a very broad definition of an associate, which includes a friend. As we know, there are persons who have publicly renounced their own former terrorist feelings and affiliations, and some have a wide circle of friends—some, for example, have friends even here in Parliament. This could be construed as meaning that, if an MP or Peer is charged with an ordinary common-law offence such as misconduct in public office, and is, or has been, a friend of Mr Y, who is a former and now repentant member of a terrorist group, the MP or Peer will satisfy the condition in the Act.

The regulation also explains that religious or political hostility can be based, to any extent, on a supposed religious belief or political opinion. Suppose, for example, two members of the same party in Northern Ireland disagree, perhaps on abortion, and get very angry and one punches the other and causes a severe injury to his jaw. He will be charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. Now Mr A, the person who has caused the grievous bodily harm, will satisfy the condition in Section 1(6). It is surely absurd that the funnel for non-jury trials should be so wide as to permit so many persons to potentially satisfy the enabling set of conditions in Section 1(2). So I believe that these conditions must become more tightly drawn; that is something that the working party and others must look at over the next two years.

The test in Section 1(2)(b) is also too low. The DPP has only to be satisfied of a possible risk to the administration of justice. Surely, at the very least, this test should require a likelihood that the administration of justice would be impaired. Does the Minister not think that it would be a good idea to require the director to satisfy a High Court judge unconnected with the trial that the test was properly met? This would arguably enable the protection provided by Section 7 of the 2007 Act to be revoked, as the decision of the director would have been validated by a High Court judge.

Although this is about security and threats to jurors, it must also be about the public interest, which must always be about the transparency of the law and our justice system. Non-jury trials must never be used, particularly in cases of corruption. I worry slightly about the word “exceptional” because it does not always seem that the trials are being used in what I would class as exceptional cases.

A worrying example is the National Asset Management Agency, a body created by the Government of Ireland in 2009 in response to the Irish financial crisis and the property bubble bursting. Corruption has been alleged in the scheme, and some people have been charged with fraud. One of the young activists in Northern Ireland, whom the High Court in Northern Ireland has described as a journalist, gave evidence to a statutory scrutiny committee investigating political corruption. He has now been charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. Out of the blue, a non-jury certificate has been issued in this case.

To me, non-jury trials should be for where terrorism is involved and there is clearly a threat to individuals. I believe that this has been an overreaction by the DPP and a gross overinterpretation of the regulations. So all I am really saying is: let us use the next two years to look at this much more carefully and make sure that we are not back in another two years, simply renewing the same regulations, without realising that maybe, just sometimes, they are being abused.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Baroness Barker

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not just a historic day, it is actually quite an emotional day for many of us who have spent many years arguing that the future of the United Kingdom was best outside the European Union. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who, through his determination, and despite many people, even in your Lordships’ House, saying that it could not happen, has brought back a trade deal that must be the catalyst that will allow us to grow and thrive and trade with the whole world.

I recall the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, saying this about our country in relation to negotiations with the EU:

“We will huff and puff but, in the end, we will basically come to heel”.—[Official Report, 16/1/18; col. 585.]


Well, our Prime Minister did not come to heel, but it is very sad that talking our country down has been so typical of many of the ex-mandarins, a few of them in your Lordships’ House. This has to end now. The culture in the Civil Service must now change—no more relying on an EU bureaucrat to blame, and no more kowtowing to an unelected commission. We can finally, unashamedly, put the British people and our country first, and work more closely with the Commonwealth, so shamefully betrayed when we originally joined the Common Market.

Of course this deal is not perfect. There is too much red tape and too many committees, which I hope will not be filled with Sir Humphreys who think that close alignment with the EU is somehow glorious. We have not moved as quickly as I would have liked on fishing. The extra money for fishing communities is so welcome, but can the Minister assure us that the policing of our fishing waters will be constant now and that we will stop immediately—as we legally can—the huge Dutch trawler that comes into our waters and hoovers up fish while destroying the seabed?

As many noble Lords have said, the Northern Ireland protocol is unfinished business. Every day we find something new which divides Northern Ireland further from the rest of the United Kingdom. Once again, those who threaten violence have been rewarded, while the pro-union community, who have not threatened violence, are rewarded with a trade border with their own country and their biggest market. I have a gentle warning for Michael Gove, who I know to be an ardent unionist and friend of the union. Those of us who really care about the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will see tomorrow as the beginning of the work to end this protocol as soon as possible, and certainly in four years’ time.

Finally, I pay tribute to the remarkable courage, fortitude and enthusiasm of all those in our country who made that brave decision to vote to leave in 2016. It is they who took the brunt of the ridicule and nasty abuse. Their dedication and continued support for those of us in Parliament fighting the remainers, who wanted to ignore the referendum, kept us going when sometimes it looked like we were losing the battle. That meant a lot to us.

One other man apart from our Prime Minister who has been absolutely instrumental in getting us to where we are today is Nigel Farage, and the country, and millions of people—whatever Members of this House think—will for ever hold him in their debt. Never has a man been more attacked and vilified, yet throughout, he kept focused. Today, as he said, the war is over. I am confident that if our Government and our people show positivity, vision and enterprise, we can make our country great again, and even greater.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. Oh, we cannot hear him. I will call the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth? No? I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.