Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

That might be a difficulty for the hon. Lady and the SDLP, but my party believes that there should be a presumption in favour of non-jury trials anyway, so that is not a big issue for us. The assumption behind many of the complaints aired today is that non-jury trials deliver a lesser standard of justice than jury trials. However, the evidence—at least from our part of the United Kingdom—is that many of the miscarriages of justice that have occurred were not in non-jury courts. The headline miscarriage of justice cases occurred in jury courts, so I do not have the same concern as the hon. Lady about the lack of opportunity for people to challenge the decision of the DPP. As there is already a presumption to move to jury trials, and that 85 to 90 per cent. of scheduled offences are already being descheduled so that they can be heard in jury courts, there is sufficient movement in a direction that I believe is dangerous in present circumstances. As has been pointed out, we are not happy about the proposals to move towards jury trials, but if we must do so, one of the safeguards that we welcome is the fact that at least pre-emptory challenge has been removed. In Northern Ireland in the past each individual could make 12 pre-emptory challenges, and one of the people who briefed me on the Bill told me about the old saying that in England when the jury was chosen the trial was ready to begin, but that in Ireland when the jury was chosen the trial was finished. When someone can challenge jurors without reason, there is a great danger that the jury is made up only of people they believe will be sympathetic to them. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee mentioned that in our report we pointed out that one of the big challenges in Northern Ireland in the future would be dealing with criminal gangs. If the system was not changed, there would be a real possibility that in a case involving six gang members, there could be 72 challenges to the jury so that eventually the accused would have a jury that they felt would be sympathetic. It is essential to bring that process into line with the rest of the UK. However, it will not stop perverse decisions by juries, especially in areas where there is a strong republican or indeed loyalist influence. Some of the people chosen for the jury might not feel that criminal activity by a paramilitary organisation was all that bad and that it was one of the things that had to be done to raise funds. Just three people could influence the decision in favour of the accused, so there is great danger of perverse judgments and we must be careful about that. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who is no longer in the Chamber, and other Members spoke about the powers for the Army to stop, search and arrest people and so on. They were jumping up and down about that, but I have watched operations as a member of the Policing Board and I can tell them that sometimes it is impossible—especially where the police ask for Army support—to distinguish the roles of the police and Army personnel. When the police and the Army operate together, Army personnel need the same powers of arrest and search as the police require. When they have to deal with a fracas, a riot or public disorder, are the Army personnel supposed to leave it to the police to make the arrests or to do the stopping and searching? When they are liaising on the ground they need the same powers.