I am happy to do so, although I was about to deal with the meat of the Bill. Clause 7 is an ouster clause—there is no doubt about that—that effectively prevents challenges to decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It restricts challenges to his decisions to circumstances in which there has been bad faith or other exceptional circumstances. That puts the case law on reviews of the Attorney-General’s decision not to deschedule in Diplock cases on a statutory footing. It derives from the Shuker case, which confirmed that the procedure for determining the mode of trial for the accused is not suitable for the full panoply of judicial review. Cases could be reviewed on grounds such as bad faith and dishonesty. It is not a change from the current position—in any event, the DPP’s decision is about the mode of trial, and the defendant will receive at least as fair a trial without a jury as with one, so they will not suffer any detriment. As I shall make clear, the intention is to move to jury trials as the norm. Juryless trials will be the exception, unlike the so-called Diplock arrangements, whereby juryless trials are the norm.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hain
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 13 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c894 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:49:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365344
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365344
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365344