Justice minister ‘will not appeal’ sexual offences reporting court judgement
Justice Minister Naomi Long MLA has confirmed that she will not challenge a court judgement that the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 is “not compatible with human rights” after three Executive parties reportedly indicated their support for the verdict.
On 31 May 2024, Justice Michael Humphries ruled that the current legislation was not compatible with human rights or press freedom.
The law, called the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, was passed prior to the collapse of the Assembly in 2022 and came into effect in 2023. The legislation granted those accused of sex offences anonymity for life as well as for 25 years after death to suspects not charged with any sexual offences.
Following the ruling, and after weeks of consideration, Minister of Justice Naomi Long MLA announced on 3 July 2024 that she will not appeal the court’s decision.
Long previously said in June 2024 that she was “minded” to appeal the judgement on constitutional grounds, but that the other parties in the Executive four-party coalition did not agree with her.
The Justice Minister suggested that failing to challenge the ruling could compromise any future challenge to Assembly legislation.
“I indicated that I was minded, on the strength of the legal advice, to challenge the judgment on the constitutional issues alone, but sought their [the other Executive parties] written responses by 17:00 BST on 2 July,” said the Minister.
Long asserted that “my only reason for considering an appeal was these wider implications to the Assembly, its departments and ministers,” thereby determining her decision not to proceed with an appeal.
“Public interest journalism serves a vital role in any democratic society… There was no debate around the issue of the public interest, relevant to the anonymity of suspects, nor any consideration of the need for a fair balance of rights.”
Justice Michael Humphries
The Justice Minister also denied assertions that the law had been “rushed through” and denied accusations of misleading the Assembly.
Speaking in the Assembly in June 2024, TUV leader Jim Allister MP claimed Long had “walked the Assembly into this folly, not least by exaggerating” the proposals in the Gillen review.
DUP MLA Joanne Bunting, who chairs the Assembly’s Committee for Justice, asserted there had been “reputational damage for the minister, her department, and indeed this house”.
Bunting stated that “significant unintended consequences” of the legislation were missed because the Assembly “rushed and sacrificed quality for quantity”, and asked if officials “did not know the potential ramifications, did they not understand, or did they mislead”?
Long, who was campaigining in the general election for the entire duration of her period of consideration, denied that “legislation was rushed through in the last political mandate, adding that “while it was a challenging period for all, no processes were condensed”.
During proceedings, it was argued that victims of sexual assault could be jailed if they publicly named their suspected abusers while the court also heard the law meant that suspects could not publicly deny allegations.
Justice Humphreys told the Belfast High Court that the relevant sections of the legislation outlining this reporting prohibition were “not law” and failed to strike a fair balance between suspects’ rights to privacy and press freedom.
The case was brought forward by a collective of media organisations including the BBC, The Irish News, Mediahuis, and News Group Newspapers.
The Act was preceded by a review carried out by retired judge John Gillen. Among the recommendations in the Gillen review was a prohibition on identifying those under investigation for sexual crimes prior to being charged. However, the review did not suggest extending anonymity beyond their deaths.
Ruling on the challenge, the Justice Humphries said: “The imposition of a criminal sanction on public interest journalism, and the chilling effect occasioned thereby, represents an interference with an Article 10 right which requires the most anxious scrutiny.”
Declaring sections of the act unlawful, he added: “They are outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly as they are incompatible with the Article 10 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] rights of the applicants.”
In concluding comments, the judge stated: “Public interest journalism serves a vital role in any democratic society… There was no debate around the issue of the public interest, relevant to the anonymity of suspects, nor any consideration of the need for a fair balance of rights.”
