Inside the Justice Bill

As the Assembly prepares for its first justice legislation, agendaNi summarises the main proposals being considered.

When the Justice Bill is debated on the Assembly Chamber’s floor this month, it will be marking a significant legal milestone. Stormont is now on a par with Holyrood, Westminster and Leinster House by debating and passing laws on criminal justice. It is also the first Bill brought forward by an Alliance Minister.

A miscellaneous provisions Bill was mooted in the Hillsborough Castle Agreement in February, and as the title suggests, this would essentially be a broad, tidying-up exercise. David Ford hopes the law will be passed before the next Assembly election. He admits this is a “relatively short timescale” but allowed officials to brief the committee before the summer recess, to speed that up.

Five main subjects have been considered by the committee i.e. victims’ and witnesses’ needs; legal aid; efficiency in the courts; crime reduction partnerships; and offences at sports events.

Sport

Disorder at sports grounds is relatively rare in Northern Ireland but has happened, as shown by the Linfield v Glentoran crowd trouble in December 2008. The proposals cover large football, GAA or rugby venues.

There will be a clampdown on offensive chanting and songs; the word “offensive” covers all the ‘section 75’ categories as “sectarian” is hard to define in law. Bringing flares and bottles into grounds is also to be prohibited.

Spectators would also not be allowed to possess alcohol in grounds within sight of the pitch between two hours before a game and one hour afterwards; it would also be banned on hired transport. A court could also ban a person from a football match for up to 10 years on conviction.

Sinn Féin’s John O’Dowd has questioned the need for new legislation as the worst behaviour is already against the law. He also considered the alcohol proposals too strict as well-behaved supporters should be able to enjoy a drink sensibly.

One of the more controversial points is a proposed ban on unauthorised pitch incursions, which many spectators see as overcautious. Sports bodies have restricted these celebrations by citing health and safety reasons. Barrister and GAA player Joe Brolly has pointed out that fencing to contain spectators is more likely to cause accidents than running spectators, as shown by the Hillsborough disaster.

Victims

Justice cannot be done without evidence but intimidated or vulnerable victims and witnesses are more reluctant to give that to the court. Some ‘special measures’ to protect them are already in place, including screens, video links, and video recordings of evidence-in-chief and cross-examinations.

In cases involving firearms, knives and other weapons, witnesses would be automatically eligible for special measures. Ultimately, a court will still have to determine whether special measures would improve the quality of evidence.

The Bill also proposes offender levies literally make the guilty party pay the victim for their offence; they are in use in England and Wales. The levy would generally increase according to how severe the offence was e.g. £5 for fixed penalties, £30 for immediate custodial sentences. Small deductions (£1 per week) could be made from prisoners’ earnings.

The Courts Service would collect the levy and deposit its proceeds, expected to be £500,000 per year, in a ‘victims of crime fund’. This would help to meet the needs of victims and witnesses, and fund support services.

Partnership

Crime reduction partnerships are proposed to integrate community safety partnerships and district policing partnerships.

This will be an early testing ground for community planning, while local government reform is delayed. The name itself is not particularly popular with most people preferring the word “safer” in the title. A majority of members should be elected representatives, according to the public consultation out earlier in the year.

John O’Dowd questioned “what this cosy, warm word partnership” means on the ground. “I sometimes get a sense that the PSNI in particular has mastered public relations so well that it can charm any audience, including DPPs and me,” he commented, adding that he felt “spindried” after meeting a senior police commander.

The number of partnerships was up for discussion. Jeffrey Donaldson claimed there was a “disconnect” between local government and the nine police districts, with commanders often unable to attend DPP meetings. He suggested one partnership per police district.

Tom Elliott questioned the purpose of DPPs, having chaired one, and suggested a return to police liaison committees attached to councils.

Efficiency

Not all offences need the full prosecution process, officials say, and prosecuting minor cases slows down the court system. “A day in court can have a sobering effect on people,” Maurice Morrow has commented. “If the system becomes very casual, it will not have the same impact on offenders.”

Three proposals are put forward, the first being an extension of fixed penalties. Police could issue these for ‘Friday night misbehaviour’ offences, including disorderly behaviour and criminal damage, petty shoplifting, and selling alcohol to under-18s. The normal penalty would be £40-£80, thought by some to be too low.

A prosecutorial fine is the second suggestion. At his or her discretion, a public prosecutor could offer a financial penalty, up to £200, as an alternative to prosecution. Financial compensation orders could be attached to these penalties, to make good on the damage caused.

Thirdly, conditional cautions could be used to penalise minor repeat offenders, again with conditions such as reparations. Offenders could still request a trial.

There are currently 21 magistrate’s court districts and seven county court districts, and Court Service officials see the current system as too rigid. They had considered aligning these with the new local council areas but this would be similarly rigid, so a single “territorial jurisdiction” for the whole province is therefore planned. This would allow business to move more flexibly between the lower courts e.g. listing a case at a more convenient venue for a victim or witness.

Public prosecutors could also be allowed to issue a summons without a lay magistrate’s signature, to save time, although some observers say this undermines the legal system’s checks and balances.

Legal aid

Around 80,000 people receive legal aid each year, with the bill costing £103 million last year. This outstrips the £65 million budget, which was raised to £85 million on devolution. Responsibility for legal aid is due to move from the Courts Service to the Department of Justice in April 2011.

Means-testing is suggested to contain criminal legal aid costs, down to a target of £79 million by 2013. There is already a means-test for civil legal aid. At present, legal aid is approved in 44 per cent of civil cases and 80 per cent of criminal cases where an application is made.

Wealthy offenders could also be required to pay back legal aid when convicted; this would apply also to people who recover financial assets through the courts. The graduated fees scheme (agendaNi issue 33, p.18-19) would also be introduced but the Bar Council has reservations, claiming that the scheme has eroded standards of advocacy in England and Wales. The Law Society concurs.

Other clauses may also require sex offenders to notify police of their location, without a court process, and allow solicitor advocates the same rights of audience as barristers in the higher courts. This is supported by the Law Society but opposed by the Bar Council. Magistrate’s courts would be allowed to deal with compassionate bail requests, with the crown court dealing with repeat bail applications; both proposals will free up time in the high court.

The Bill’s final content will be up to the Minister and published at its first stage in the Assembly.